Drew Stubbs is off to a poor start in Spring Training. He's 1 for 16 with 6K, 3BB and his one hit was a HR. Chris Dickerson has started off well and despite Stubbs strong audition at the end of 2009, he only put up an OPS of .715 in 400 PAs in AAA. The question of the day:

Does Stubbs need to hit over the next three weeks to make the team? It may depend on how Heisey does to grab the spot as RH Half of a CF Platoon. I can't see the Reds giving Dickerson the job on a full time basis.

Poll Choices:

1. Yes. He needs to hit. His minor league offensive record is spotty and he hasn't proven anything at the higher levels.

2. No. He looked great at the end of last year and won the job.

3. It depends on whether the Reds can find an alternative RH Bat who can play CF.

mth123

03-14-2010, 09:46 AM

IMO, Stubbs need to hit this spring.

Degenerate39

03-14-2010, 10:35 AM

IMO It's his position already

mth123

03-14-2010, 10:45 AM

The team could be looking to make a spot for Laynce Nix. Wlad is out of options. Bruce, Dickerson and Gomes are locks. They seem to be high on Heisey. I could see a scenario where Stubbs gets sent down if he doesn't hit and the others do. If some one like Francisco tears it up and becomes a platoon partner for Gomes, Dickerson will be limited to CF for playing time. That may mean they want Stubbs to go down and get hot and make a strong push to take the job.

Only so many spots for the OF.

REDblooded

03-14-2010, 11:08 AM

Doesn't look any worse than votto...

jojo

03-14-2010, 11:14 AM

Spring training stats are mostly not worth recording.

No he doesn't need to hit this spring training.

If the Reds don't have a good idea of who he is based upon his minor league history, then they have troubles.

RedsManRick

03-14-2010, 11:18 AM

Do I think he should have to? No. Do I think he will have to hit? Yes. I actually don't think it will determine whether or not he makes the club. Rather, it will determine how often he starts. If Dickerson hits well, I think Dusty will make extra effort to get him some playing time against tough righties in CF instead of pulling Gomes.

As for that decision, I don't think it's necessarily related to "spring stats", but rather what the team's scouting eyes have to say about it.

membengal

03-14-2010, 11:19 AM

If the Reds are smart, they are hoping for a .700 OPS from Stubbs. And he should get a chance to show in the first few months he can do that. If he can't, then time to look elsewhere. But that glove deserves a chance to see if the bat can keep him in the line-up. His defense is enthralling, and on a team built on pitching and defense, he needs to play. So, no, his spring stats for me are meaningless.

Edd Roush

03-14-2010, 11:29 AM

I am with degenerate. I think Stubbs has a stranglehold on CF and is as much of a lock to start on Opening Day as Jay Bruce. I was originally excited about that because that meant that Taveras would not get the Reds' first at-bat of the season, but since Wily the Taverible has been sent out of town, I have really started to wonder if Dickerson or Heisey might be the better option. Heisey has always hit more and Dickerson has a more substantive sample size of major league success. While 16 ABs is certainly not a large enough sample size to draw any conclusions, if this lasts through April and May, you have to give Dickerson and/or Heisey a look.

toledodan

03-14-2010, 11:52 AM

I am with degenerate. I think Stubbs has a stranglehold on CF and is as much of a lock to start on Opening Day as Jay Bruce. I was originally excited about that because that meant that Taveras would not get the Reds' first at-bat of the season, but since Wily the Taverible has been sent out of town, I have really started to wonder if Dickerson or Heisey might be the better option. Heisey has always hit more and Dickerson has a more substantive sample size of major league success. While 16 ABs is certainly not a large enough sample size to draw any conclusions, if this lasts through April and May, you have to give Dickerson and/or Heisey a look.

i agree. stubbs will get a chance to start the season. however it looks like the reds have plenty of options if he slips which is a good thing!:thumbup:

Kc61

03-14-2010, 11:59 AM

Stubbs will make the team, the question is how much he will play.

IMO, this is all settled already.

Every day two of the following guys will start for the Reds - Stubbs, Gomes, Dickerson.
One will be on the bench every day. There will be no "everyday" starter, each will be scheduled for 400 at bats.

I can't think that 16 ABs in spring training is any more indicative of skill than any sample of 16 ABs during the regular or post-season. If the coaches feel he's doing OK but just not having success, fine. The games don't count so we're not relying on his production, rather, we're gauging his development.

SirFelixCat

03-14-2010, 12:27 PM

Stubbs will make the team, the question is how much he will play.

IMO, this is all settled already.

Every day two of the following guys will start for the Reds - Stubbs, Gomes, Dickerson.
One will be on the bench every day. There will be no "everyday" starter, each will be scheduled for 400 at bats.

If Stubbs doesn't hit, he'll just play less. But he'll be on the ballclub.
This is pretty much how I see it as of right now. But Heisey and Francisco definitely are and can, make some noise about this too.

mth123

03-14-2010, 12:56 PM

Spring training stats are mostly not worth recording.

No he doesn't need to hit this spring training.

If the Reds don't have a good idea of who he is based upon his minor league history, then they have troubles.

I agree with most of this, but still come down on the other side. I totally agree with Spring Stats being meaningless, but no matter what the stats say, you can usually tell if a guy is swinging well.

Based on Stubbs' performance in the minors (.715 OPS in AAA in 2009) he shouldn't even really be in consideration for a major league job. A season like that suggests that a kid should go back down and knock down the door. But, he did have that impressive few weeks in the majors and that also has got to weigh in the equation. That leaves things in question for me. How Stubbs is swinging the bat at the end of Spring Training would weigh huge in my decision on the kid. Obviously his first 19 PAs aren't very meaningful, but if he continues to swing like a 6 year old girl over the next three weeks, the roster spot needs to go to somebody else. Consider that the team has 3 locks (Bruce, Dickerson and Gomes), 1 guy out of options (Wlad), 1 guy on a minor league deal who spent the entire 2009 season on the roster (Nix), last year's organizational player of the year (Heisey who I think should also have to prove it in AAA) and their best bet for added mid-line-up sock (Francisco) also vying for a spot.

If Stubbs is struggling, I think he needs to go down at least until he heats up in AAA.

Ron Madden

03-14-2010, 01:01 PM

I don't put a lot of stock in spring training numbers either.

I just don't believe Stubbs has done enough to be handed the starting CF job.

TRF

03-14-2010, 01:08 PM

Do I think he needs to hit? yes. Do the Reds? probably not. That said, if he's at the Mendoza line come the beginning of May, he's Louisville bound.

Kc61

03-14-2010, 01:12 PM

This is pretty much how I see it as of right now. But Heisey and Francisco definitely are and can, make some noise about this too.

I don't think Francisco or Heisey has a real chance of sticking this year. If Stubbs were to go down, I'd expect Nix to be the replacement.

But Stubbs is such a good defender that he's worth keeping even if he doesn't start many games. He can replace Gomes late in games, with Dickerson sliding over to left. And during the season, Stubbs' bat will probably come alive.

I'd be very surprised to see Stubbs go back to AAA. But I've been surprised before. . . .

mth123

03-14-2010, 01:15 PM

If the Reds are smart, they are hoping for a .700 OPS from Stubbs. And he should get a chance to show in the first few months he can do that. If he can't, then time to look elsewhere. But that glove deserves a chance to see if the bat can keep him in the line-up. His defense is enthralling, and on a team built on pitching and defense, he needs to play. So, no, his spring stats for me are meaningless.

A couple things on this post.

1. I think .700 OPS is far from a sure thing. I'd say .715 in AAA equates to about .650 in the majors. IMO Stubbs needs to hit, hit, hit to get that assumption out of my mind.

2. I don't really believe that good teams are based on pitching and defense. I think good teams are based on pitching, defense and hitting. The Reds are already carrying too many glove only types. Stubbs needs to hit or the other CF candidate who is more than good enough on defense and also may be better at filling a role on offense should get the job.

nate

03-14-2010, 01:29 PM

I agree with most of this, but still come down on the other side. I totally agree with Spring Stats being meaningless, but no matter what the stats say, you can usually tell if a guy is swinging well.

Not if you're not at the game or one of the coaches watching him.

Spring~Fields

03-14-2010, 01:30 PM

I agree with most of this, but still come down on the other side. I totally agree with Spring Stats being meaningless, but no matter what the stats say, you can usually tell if a guy is swinging well.

Based on Stubbs' performance in the minors (.715 OPS in AAA in 2009) he shouldn't even really be in consideration for a major league job. A season like that suggests that a kid should go back down and knock down the door.

If Stubbs is struggling, I think he needs to go down at least until he heats up in AAA.

Sure, otherwise the people and powers that be are in danger of repeating the same mistakes of that past, as they did for whatever reasoning and rationalization in giving Patterson and Tevaras April, May, June, July in the name of …….? but the results were……..?

Stubbs needs to get on base and hit like a major league ready leadoff batter, or you have what? For how long, April, May, June, July ? The results are if he doesn’t……? You’ve seen it before.

Then again if he hits, gets on base, fine….we already know he can field.

Oh, one question, do they have a better option in the present or to start the season that can field and get on base?

Blitz Dorsey

03-14-2010, 01:34 PM

If someone who wasn't a former first-round pick had put up the minor league numbers of Stubbs, they wouldn't even be considered for a Major League roster spot this early in their career, let alone a starting spot.

Just sayin'.

For the record, I voted "A -- he has to hit." And I hope Dickerson gets the majority of starts in center.

Spring~Fields

03-14-2010, 01:34 PM

I don't think Francisco or Heisey has a real chance of sticking this year. If Stubbs were to go down, I'd expect Nix to be the replacement.

But Stubbs is such a good defender that he's worth keeping even if he doesn't start many games. He can replace Gomes late in games, with Dickerson sliding over to left. And during the season, Stubbs' bat will probably come alive.

I'd be very surprised to see Stubbs go back to AAA. But I've been surprised before. . . .

Should he be getting the most PA/AB at leadoff while everyone is waiting to see "Stubbs' bat will probably come alive" ? Can he bat down in the order until he does "come alive" ?

Let's hope that he starts coming alive before the season starts.

mth123

03-14-2010, 01:36 PM

Not if you're not at the game or one of the coaches watching him.

Well, the guys making the decision are at the game. That is the entire point. From what I've heard, he looks very tentative so far. Don't know if its true since I'm a couple thousand miles away.

membengal

03-14-2010, 01:37 PM

A couple things on this post.

1. I think .700 OPS is far from a sure thing. I'd say .715 in AAA equates to about .650 in the majors. IMO Stubbs needs to hit, hit, hit to get that assumption out of my mind.

2. I don't really believe that good teams are based on pitching and defense. I think good teams are based on pitching, defense and hitting. The Reds are already carrying too many glove only types. Stubbs needs to hit or the other CF candidate who is more than good enough on defense and also may be better at filling a role on offense should get the job.

1. I didn't say a .700 OPS is a sure thing. I said the Reds, if they are smart, are hoping he can do at least that. And I think they need to give him the at-bats to find out.

2. I think some good teams can have enough pitching and defense to cover an offense that is not top rate. And the Reds better hope that is the case, because they are not going ot have a top rate offense. And Stubbs' glove has more of a chance to help this team on a nightly basis than whatever theoretical upgrade in offense would replace him in CF. Which is a long way of saying, I am not sold on Dickerson yet, and as much as I like Heisey, he is an unknown too.

Given all that, Stubbs should play until he hits his way out. And if/when he hits his way out, by, say, mid-May, then Heisey should get a look. I like Gomes/Dickerson platooning in LF, frankly.

Spring~Fields

03-14-2010, 01:43 PM

1. I didn't say a .700 OPS is a sure thing. I said the Reds, if they are smart, are hoping he can do at least that. And I think they need to give him the at-bats to find out.

Given all that, Stubbs should play until he hits his way out. And if/when he hits his way out, by, say, mid-May, then Heisey should get a look. I like Gomes/Dickerson platooning in LF, frankly.

I can understand what you are saying. You might be perfectly right.

So are you going to do this with Stubbs at leadoff until "he hits his way out"?

Big Klu

03-14-2010, 01:50 PM

I can understand what you are saying. You might be perfectly right.

So are you going to do this with Stubbs at leadoff until "he hits his way out"?

I would think that if Stubbs struggles for the first month to six weeks, the first move would be to move him down in the order--likely to seventh or eighth. Then if he continues to struggle until the end of May and into June, the Reds would have to make a decision.

While it is true that Stubbs will have to prove that he can hit (and that last summer was not a fluke), I think the same thing could be said for Dickerson as well. Personally, I like both of them, and hope that they both succeed.

membengal

03-14-2010, 01:53 PM

I can understand what you are saying. You might be perfectly right.

So are you going to do this with Stubbs at leadoff until "he hits his way out"?

Well, I wouldn't bat him first, but I know Dusty will. But otherwise, yes. He plays until or if he "hits his way out". That glove is that good, that they have to find out. If he can be at or above a .700 OPS, then fine. If not, then they have to make a decision about whether some more time at AAA will help. But I would give him that chance, now, yes.

mbgrayson

03-14-2010, 01:59 PM

To me, since he will lead off, OBP is more important than averge or OPS. I think Stubbs needs an OBP in the .350 range this year to stick. Even if his power regresses, given his speed on the bases, and his strong defense, I think he would be very valuable if he can get on base 35% of the time.

Kc61

03-14-2010, 02:08 PM

Should he be getting the most PA/AB at leadoff while everyone is waiting to see "Stubbs' bat will probably come alive" ? Can he bat down in the order until he does "come alive" ?

Let's hope that he starts coming alive before the season starts.

Yes, if Dickerson is hitting and Stubbs not, then Dickerson should be the leadoff man. Stubbs can hit lower in the lineup if he's not hitting.

I do think Stubbs bat will come alive. If he has trouble, he will shorten up, like in the minors, make better contact, hit fewer homers. But he shouldn't hit leadoff too much if figuring things out, I agree.

I just don't see the scenario where he goes back to AAA. Now is Stubbs' chance to prove he's a major league player. At some point, a player needs to be given his shot at the major league level.

Spring~Fields

03-14-2010, 02:10 PM

Personally, I like both of them, and hope that they both succeed.

Me too. :)

Then again I like all the Reds players and want them to play and do very well, but, I don't think I am being very realistic and don't think they can all play enough, so in the meantime I think the ones that are showing that they can produce now at the plate and in the field combined should be the ones that get that time, and then the other's when they are ready, not before. I am thinking of players who have some previous major league history that suggests that they will perform, no worries.

All of these guys still have enough spring training left to get ready and be that player. I don't think spring stats mean much when it comes to veteran performers who have had a major league history of performing, they usually perform to their levels when the time comes. I am not sure about players with a limited major league background though.

Spring~Fields

03-14-2010, 02:16 PM

Yes, if Dickerson is hitting and Stubbs not, then Dickerson should be the leadoff man. Stubbs can hit lower in the lineup if he's not hitting.

I do think Stubbs bat will come alive. If he has trouble, he will shorten up, like in the minors, make better contact, hit fewer homers. But he shouldn't hit leadoff too much if figuring things out, I agree.

I just don't see the scenario where he goes back to AAA. Now is Stubbs' chance to prove he's a major league player. At some point, a player needs to be given his shot at the major league level.

I think that you are being flexible and reasonable. I think most of us would be comfortable with what you are saying here, and where other's have said similiar. Maybe some of us are just afraid that the young man will have pressure put on him at leadoff, and struggle. Maybe we are wrong to worry, and things work out fine.

TRF

03-14-2010, 02:25 PM

Yes, if Dickerson is hitting and Stubbs not, then Dickerson should be the leadoff man. Stubbs can hit lower in the lineup if he's not hitting.

I do think Stubbs bat will come alive. If he has trouble, he will shorten up, like in the minors, make better contact, hit fewer homers. But he shouldn't hit leadoff too much if figuring things out, I agree.

I just don't see the scenario where he goes back to AAA. Now is Stubbs' chance to prove he's a major league player. At some point, a player needs to be given his shot at the major league level.

Stubbs history is get to a level, dominate for a very short period of time, then post very poor numbers. he did this in 2008. and since the of the 2008 regular season, in the minors he was less than spectacular at the plate.

And he's hittin what? a buck seventy in ST? Small sample to be sure, but he hasn't earned the job yet. Bruce in RF has, and he's killing the ball. Dickerson wants it and he's tearing it up at the plate and on the basepaths.

I see a scenario of Stubbs starting out slowly, possibly a .300 OBP for a month or two. If that happens, he's headed to AAA.

Ron Madden

03-14-2010, 02:44 PM

To me, since he will lead off, OBP is more important than averge or OPS. I think Stubbs needs an OBP in the .350 range this year to stick. Even if his power regresses, given his speed on the bases, and his strong defense, I think he would be very valuable if he can get on base 35% of the time.

I agree, I think Stubbs needs to get on base at a .350 clip or better.

He would be very valuable IF he can do that and I hope he can do that.

Dickerson has in fact already done that at the major league level.

I just can't understand how Stubbs can be handed the starting job.

They should let Stubbs and Dickerson battle it out or at least share time in CF.

mth123

03-14-2010, 02:49 PM

1. I didn't say a .700 OPS is a sure thing. I said the Reds, if they are smart, are hoping he can do at least that. And I think they need to give him the at-bats to find out.

2. I think some good teams can have enough pitching and defense to cover an offense that is not top rate. And the Reds better hope that is the case, because they are not going ot have a top rate offense. And Stubbs' glove has more of a chance to help this team on a nightly basis than whatever theoretical upgrade in offense would replace him in CF. Which is a long way of saying, I am not sold on Dickerson yet, and as much as I like Heisey, he is an unknown too.

Given all that, Stubbs should play until he hits his way out. And if/when he hits his way out, by, say, mid-May, then Heisey should get a look. I like Gomes/Dickerson platooning in LF, frankly.

I think Stubbs/Dickerson needs to be an either/or proposition. I think a line-up with both will just be too feeble. While I'm impressed with Stubbs defense, I don't really think the defensive difference between he and Dickerson is worth so much to be putting up with a big drop in offensive production. We know Dickerson can play more than competent defense and get on base against RHP. Stubbs needs to be better than that and even at .700 OPS, I don't think he is. He proves he has his stroke in spring training or he goes down and finds it IMO. I do think Stubbs is probably a better bet long term, but if his hitting still isn't up to snuff, then he needs to go to AAA and work on it.

I hope Stubbs wins the job and Dickerson becomes 4th OF. That would mean we get a guy who not only can get on base, but hopefully provides a little pop as well. I don't want Dickerson getting a substantial number of PAs in LF though. The Reds need to get offense from someplace and too many other spots are filled with defense first guys who are passable at best on offense (when a RH is on the opposing mound 2B, SS, C even 3B are potential problems in the line-up). Give me Gomes, Francisco or maybe Wlad in LF. Heisey, Frazier or Dorn if they tear it up in AAA to start the year. Ideally give me somebody from outside the organization.

jojo

03-14-2010, 02:57 PM

The reds just need to score more than their opposition. I don't really care how it looks getting there.

dougdirt

03-14-2010, 03:14 PM

Stubbs history is get to a level, dominate for a very short period of time, then post very poor numbers. he did this in 2008.

Really? We are going there? Stubbs OPS'd .900 + in month's 1 and 4 in Sarasota, and .600 something in months 2 and 3. Then he was in Chattanooga for a month with an .800 OPS. Then in Louisville for a month with an .832 OPS.

The guy is just inconsistent, it has nothing to do with guys catching up to him or not. It is just how he has played every single year since being drafted. Up and down and up and down.

Spring~Fields

03-14-2010, 04:18 PM

The reds just need to score more than their opposition. I don't really care how it looks getting there.

:thumbup:

:)

MikeS21

03-14-2010, 04:33 PM

I honestly don't care about ST numbers. I've seen far too many fringe players make this team over the last 15 years who had great spring numbers but didn't have a clue once the opening bell sounded.

And I think that even with a .625 OPS, Stubbs will be better than either Tavares or Patterson. The main legitimate argument I hear is to move Stubbs down to 6th or 7th in the batting order. I do agree there are better options in the lead-off spot.

tripleaaaron

03-14-2010, 04:44 PM

This is kind of sad. Only horrible teams are saying let's throw him in until he hits his way out of it. Whatever happened to actually hitting your way INTO the lineup. Why give away a month of the season to see what happens, there is a time and a place for that and its not April. He has done nothing to earn the starters spot unless you count his finish which was how many at bats. I put as much stock into those as I do his spring training line. Why don't we actually try to field the best team possible to start the season, if that happens to be Stubbs, great. If not, fine. Let them earn the spot and whoever does, let's roll with it.
On another note, some act like dickerson and heissey are chopped liver on defense. They aren't that big of a drop off from Stubbs, not enough anyway to just hand Stubbs the job.
Let's actually try to win for once with our best options rather than just hoping for a performance that has never even been replicated in a full MINOR league season.
Obviously I voted he needs to hit.

Ron Madden

03-14-2010, 06:21 PM

The reds just need to score more than their opposition. I don't really care how it looks getting there.

If they can do that we'll all be happy. :thumbup:

bucksfan2

03-14-2010, 07:44 PM

Not too worried about Stubbs first 16 AB's of the season. Having a guy come in and struggle with his first live at bats isn't all out of that ordinary. I would be perfectly fine if Stubbs struggles all ST long only to come into the regular season ready to go. Certain players use their "practice" ab's to work on stuff. Not worried about Votto so I am not really worried about Stubbs. If this were May 1st and Stubbs was hitting below the .200 mark then I would be worried.

flyer85

03-14-2010, 09:27 PM

he'll have to hit to keep his job, the top 2 spots in the order don't look to get on base at a very high clip

reds44

03-14-2010, 11:24 PM

I have no idea what allows Stubbs the luxury to not hit all spring (if he doesn't hit) and still be the everyday CFer. He hasn't earned it over Dickerson.

Slyder

03-15-2010, 02:49 AM

I have no idea what allows Stubbs the luxury to not hit all spring (if he doesn't hit) and still be the everyday CFer. He hasn't earned it over Dickerson.

First round pick over whats his name+ Duhhsty Im sure would find a reason why.

fearofpopvol1

03-15-2010, 04:11 AM

What Stubbs needs to do is get on base. If he can get on base, the hitting should come.

edabbs44

03-15-2010, 08:16 AM

I agree, I think Stubbs needs to get on base at a .350 clip or better.

He would be very valuable IF he can do that and I hope he can do that.

Dickerson has in fact already done that at the major league level.

I just can't understand how Stubbs can be handed the starting job.

They should let Stubbs and Dickerson battle it out or at least share time in CF.

If Dickerson were to OBP .360 and Stubbs .330 (a generous difference), that means that Dickerson would make 15 less outs than Stubbs over 500 PAs. Yippee.

That would be the only place where anyone would give Dickerson a reasonable edge over Stubbs, and that is a somewhat best case scenario for Dickerson. If the game would begin and end with OBP, then Dickerson would have a case. But Stubbs has much higher of a ceiling than Dickerson and he deserves a chance to show what he can do.

nate

03-15-2010, 08:49 AM

Determining true skill going forward based on a month's worth of ABs is a pretty poor method of lineup construction. Especially in ST. If a month-ish worth of ABs is somehow indicative of true skill, why isn't Billy Hatcher in the Hall of Fame based on a handful of ABs in October, 1990?

If the coaches think he's doing well, that's fine with me. If they don't, equally fine. For once, the Reds have "not dreadful" options in Dickerson and Heisey.

edabbs44

03-15-2010, 09:17 AM

Determining true skill going forward based on a month's worth of ABs is a pretty poor method of lineup construction. Especially in ST. If a month-ish worth of ABs is somehow indicative of true skill, why isn't Billy Hatcher in the Hall of Fame based on a handful of ABs in October, 1990?

If the coaches think he's doing well, that's fine with me. If they don't, equally fine. For once, the Reds have "not dreadful" options in Dickerson and Heisey.

I think it is understandable if you are less than enamored with Stubbs. But I cannot see how, if that is the case, you could think that Heisey would be an option in his place.

TRF

03-15-2010, 09:34 AM

Determining true skill going forward based on a month's worth of ABs is a pretty poor method of lineup construction. Especially in ST. If a month-ish worth of ABs is somehow indicative of true skill, why isn't Billy Hatcher in the Hall of Fame based on a handful of ABs in October, 1990?

If the coaches think he's doing well, that's fine with me. If they don't, equally fine. For once, the Reds have "not dreadful" options in Dickerson and Heisey.

It's not a months worth of PA's. If that were the case, his September of last year SHOULD dictate he has the job, but then Dickerson's month or so in 2008 SHOULD have dictated he had the job last year.

I think it is understandable if you are less than enamored with Stubbs. But I cannot see how, if that is the case, you could think that Heisey would be an option in his place.

because Heisey can hit?

edabbs44

03-15-2010, 09:36 AM

because Heisey can hit?

He has "hit" for 2 months in AA.

Guacarock

03-15-2010, 09:43 AM

MLB Traderumors reported over the weekend:

"At least four teams (the Royals, Reds, Padres, and White Sox) attempted to acquire Brett Gardner this winter, hoping to start him in center field."

If the report's true, then the Reds aren't that enamored with Stubbs, Dickerson or Heisey, for that matter.

TRF

03-15-2010, 09:45 AM

He has "hit" for 2 months in AA.

myth.

456 minor league games, .830 OPS.

.820 OPS in the FSL - 129 games
.963 OPS at AA 90 games
.789 OPS at AAA 63 games
.972 OPS in the AFL - 24 games.

Yes he struggled at AAA a bit. But I wouldn't be surprised at an .850+ OPS.

BTW, four seasons of minor league ball, .830 OPS. That isn't two months of hitting.

Big Klu

03-15-2010, 09:54 AM

MLB Traderumors reported over the weekend:

"At least four teams (the Royals, Reds, Padres, and White Sox) attempted to acquire Brett Gardner this winter, hoping to start him in center field."

If the report's true, then the Reds aren't that enamored with Stubbs, Dickerson or Heisey, for that matter.

Sounds like shoddy journalism to me. "Who doesn't have an established CF? Let's tie them to a rumor about acquiring Gardner."

membengal

03-15-2010, 09:56 AM

Any "rumors" involving Yankees I tend to throw out almost immediately as the bored musings of northeast based interns.

nate

03-15-2010, 10:11 AM

It's not a months worth of PA's. If that were the case, his September of last year SHOULD dictate he has the job, but then Dickerson's month or so in 2008 SHOULD have dictated he had the job last year.

I was talking about by the end of spring training.

Guacarock

03-15-2010, 10:11 AM

Sounds like shoddy journalism to me. "Who doesn't have an established CF? Let's tie them to a rumor about acquiring Gardner."

Could be, although the report did originate from a fairly credible team -- Ken Rosenthal and his crew at Fox Sports. To read the Fox snippet, subsequently aggregated by MLB Traderumors, go to the link below and check out the March 13 Notes.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/MLB-spring-training-buzz-021510

Let's say the Reds did inquire discretely about Gardner. Maybe he was being eyed for CF or maybe for LF -- same as Byrd.

TRF

03-15-2010, 10:17 AM

I was talking about by the end of spring training.

I know, but a month is a month. CD didn't own the job after 2008. Stubbs shouldn't after his 2009. Therefore ST SHOULD be a competition, and so far Dickerson is clearly in the lead.

edabbs44

03-15-2010, 10:28 AM

myth.

456 minor league games, .830 OPS.

.820 OPS in the FSL - 129 games
.963 OPS at AA 90 games
.789 OPS at AAA 63 games
.972 OPS in the AFL - 24 games.

Yes he struggled at AAA a bit. But I wouldn't be surprised at an .850+ OPS.

BTW, four seasons of minor league ball, .830 OPS. That isn't two months of hitting.

He has always been a little old for his league also, maybe we should consider that?

He's the same age as Stubbs, but was allowed to progress normally. And why would i care what he did in 2006 and early 2007, when 2008 AND 2009 showed how much he has progressed? BTW, what was Stubbs OPS at AAA in 2009?

.713

His minor league OPS is .765, 65 points lower than Heisey. The difference between the two as far as how their careers have advanced is simple. Stubbs was a 1st round pick. Heisey has out hit him at EVERY level where they have more than 100 AB's.

And this isn't my usual anti-Stubbs rant. here. I keep reading that Heisey has only hit for two months at AA and it isn't true. I'm still waiting for Stubbs to hit for more than one month.

RedsManRick

03-15-2010, 11:04 AM

He is an elite centerfielder, and that doesn't slump.

And Janish is an elite SS, but I don't see calls for him to be our starter. Like Janish, his defense should keep him from ever being too far below replacement, but for him to really lock-up the position, I think he needs to put up something like a .700 OPS or better.

As for Dickerson not grabbing the reins... he has 421 PA across two seasons. If your idea of giving a player a chance to prove himself is a month or two of starting time, then you are setting yourself up to make a poorly informed decision. ALL players have streaks and slumps and its silly to make a decision about a player's ability based on less than a full season's worth of work. This goes for any player. Just stop looking at monthly splits -- they are functionally meaningless.

I can understand the logic for preferring Stubbs. He's a better defender (though Dickerson is still a solid if not plus CF), a few years younger, and scouts suggest he's got a higher ceiling. All good reasons to give him ample opportunity to succeed.

But to make an argument that Dickerson simply hasn't earned the opportunity as well is just plain uninformed. When you consider that OBP is more valuable than SLG, Dickerson was more productive offensively last year than Stubbs. And it's unfair to hold Dickerson's defense in LF against him when he never played it before. Yes, it's still the OF, but most OF will tell you CF is the easiest position to play if you have the range for it -- and Dickerson most certainly does. With more practice, Dickerson would no doubt be one of the best defensive LF in baseball.

The decision about who to start in CF should not be made on the basis of spring training performance. Other than proving their healthy and physically capable of doing what they've done in the past, nobody should have to perform a certain way statistically to earn a job in ST. It's just a poor basis for making the decision. But starting Stubbs in CF is completely justifiable based on the factors mentioned above. But let's just not pretend like he's done more to earn the opportunity than Dickerson to make ourselves feel better about it.

nate

03-15-2010, 11:32 AM

I know, but a month is a month. CD didn't own the job after 2008. Stubbs shouldn't after his 2009. Therefore ST SHOULD be a competition, and so far Dickerson is clearly in the lead.

A competition based on what the coaches see, yes.

One based on a statistical radar blip, no.

_Sir_Charles_

03-15-2010, 12:45 PM

We know Dickerson can play more than competent defense and get on base against RHP.

I agree on the defense part, but we don't "know" anything about his hitting in the majors yet. I don't quite understand why people are so sold on Dickerson and yet so skeptical on Stubbs. Neither of them have any substantial time in the bigs to use as a reference. I'm still skeptical on both, extremely hopeful, but still skeptical.

I will say this though, Stubbs has proven to be much more durable so far, we've got quite a bit more invested in Stubbs, his ceiling is much higher than Chris', and his glove is definitely better. Chris got his shot 2 years ago and couldn't stay healthy to keep it. I think Stubbs deserves a shot to prove himself. But to think he's not going to struggle is putting blinders on. He will. So will Dickerson. The key is whether they make adjustments and work to improve, or if they slump and spiral downward. Waaaaay too early to make a call yet on either of them (or Heisey). But based on most recent performance in the bigs...the job is Stubbs to lose.

edabbs44

03-15-2010, 12:53 PM

I agree on the defense part, but we don't "know" anything about his hitting in the majors yet. I don't quite understand why people are so sold on Dickerson and yet so skeptical on Stubbs. Neither of them have any substantial time in the bigs to use as a reference. I'm still skeptical on both, extremely hopeful, but still skeptical.

I will say this though, Stubbs has proven to be much more durable so far, we've got quite a bit more invested in Stubbs, his ceiling is much higher than Chris', and his glove is definitely better. Chris got his shot 2 years ago and couldn't stay healthy to keep it. I think Stubbs deserves a shot to prove himself. But to think he's not going to struggle is putting blinders on. He will. So will Dickerson. The key is whether they make adjustments and work to improve, or if they slump and spiral downward. Waaaaay too early to make a call yet on either of them (or Heisey). But based on most recent performance in the bigs...the job is Stubbs to lose.

I honesty think that some are blinded by OBP and that is why Dickerson has become somewhat of a darling here. If all Dickerson has (at best) is 15ish less outs over a full season over Stubbs, then I'll be glad to see Stubbs get a chance to eclipse what Dickerson can do.

jojo

03-15-2010, 12:56 PM

Fifteen outs is around ten runs or a win.... that's kind of big. It might be that Stubbs is better defensively by close to that so in the end it may all be a wash but still....

Spring~Fields

03-15-2010, 01:00 PM

Fifteen outs is around ten runs or a win.... that's kind of big. It might be that Stubbs is better defensively by close to that so in the end it may all be a wash but still....

You’re much better at the objective evidence than I am, so I feel that I am asking the more qualified individual by asking you the question, is there any objective evidence to support either of the players, Stubbs or Dickerson over the other for playing time in center?

_Sir_Charles_

03-15-2010, 01:04 PM

I agree with both Edabbs44 and jojo, but we're still talking about really small sample sizes here for both of them. Quoting minor league numbers for OBP really doesn't help here. Going against big league pitchers is a whole new ballgame.

If Chris had put up the numbers he did his first year for 2 FULL seasons, then yeah, I'd say he's the starter. But he's proven to be pretty fragile and he didn't come close to duplicating that first season in his second. I hope that's not the case and they're just flukish injuries. But right now he's looking very Tracy McGrady-ish in terms of durability. But don't get me wrong, I absolutely love Dickerson. But all things being equal, it's Drew's turn to see if he can grab the reins and hold on.

TRF

03-15-2010, 01:09 PM

I honesty think that some are blinded by OBP and that is why Dickerson has become somewhat of a darling here. If all Dickerson has (at best) is 15ish less outs over a full season over Stubbs, then I'll be glad to see Stubbs get a chance to eclipse what Dickerson can do.

.360 for Dickerson? ok, even though last year it was .373 and Stubbs was .323

Of course Stubbs COULD improve that. Maybe. But he'll have to hit to do it. He doesn't have the power to hit .240 and post a .100+ point difference in his BA/OBP.

He needs to hit.

nate

03-15-2010, 01:10 PM

I agree on the defense part, but we don't "know" anything about his hitting in the majors yet. I don't quite understand why people are so sold on Dickerson and yet so skeptical on Stubbs. Neither of them have any substantial time in the bigs to use as a reference. I'm still skeptical on both, extremely hopeful, but still skeptical.

Dickerson's major league sample size is more than twice Stubbs'. So while neither is definitive, I'm pretty sure we "know" a lot more about Dickerson than Stubbs.

I will say this though, Stubbs has proven to be much more durable so far, we've got quite a bit more invested in Stubbs, his ceiling is much higher than Chris', and his glove is definitely better. Chris got his shot 2 years ago and couldn't stay healthy to keep it. I think Stubbs deserves a shot to prove himself. But to think he's not going to struggle is putting blinders on. He will. So will Dickerson. The key is whether they make adjustments and work to improve, or if they slump and spiral downward. Waaaaay too early to make a call yet on either of them (or Heisey). But based on most recent performance in the bigs...the job is Stubbs to lose.

It's way too early to make a call but it's Stubbs' job to lose.

I see.

edabbs44

03-15-2010, 01:11 PM

Fifteen outs is around ten runs or a win.... that's kind of big. It might be that Stubbs is better defensively by close to that so in the end it may all be a wash but still....

What about the potential for an increase in SLG?

I'm not saying that Stubbs is going to blow anyone's doors off, but his potential ceiling is higher than what Dickerson brings to the table. This team will need more of Stubbs' ceiling than what Dickerson will likely do.

Spring~Fields

03-15-2010, 01:13 PM

Often we see it written where injuries are included as a something of a giving of a player the benefit of the doubt.

Kind of like, well player x, y or z had some injury problems, and some health issues last year, and this year we expect x, y, or z to be just fine. We have all read where it is written in a manner to excuse an outcome due to injuries etc. Why can’t Dickerson have that benefit in thought? I guess he will since he is being considered for playing time in both left and center.

Can we honestly play it both ways, though on the injury card? Then again if Dickerson can't outperform Stubbs numbers, do the Reds really even want Dickerson in LF?

edabbs44

03-15-2010, 01:15 PM

.360 for Dickerson? ok, even though last year it was .373 and Stubbs was .323

Of course Stubbs COULD improve that. Maybe. But he'll have to hit to do it. He doesn't have the power to hit .240 and post a .100+ point difference in his BA/OBP.

He needs to hit.

Does Dickerson's .372 career BABIP concern you at all? Do you expect him to equal that this year and the coming years?

RedsManRick

03-15-2010, 01:17 PM

You’re much better at the objective evidence than I am, so I feel that I am asking the more qualified individual by asking you the question, is there any objective evidence to support either of the players, Stubbs or Dickerson over the other for playing time in center?

Based on the available information, Dickerson's likely production in 2010 is greater than Stubbs' likely production. That said, both projections carry fairly big error bars and the ranges of possibilities overlap significantly.

For example, PECOTA has Stubbs 50th percentile projection at .237/.315/.358. Dickerson's is .254/.348/.404. That's not an insignificant difference. Of course, Stubbs' elite defense is likely to make up some if not all of that gap. A lot it of comes down to how well you think Dickerson plays CF defense.

But this question only really makes sense in a specific context. Are you asking just who will likely produce the most value in 2010? Because one of the major justifications for choosing Stubbs is that he has higher long-term upside and that he should get as much opportunity to reach that as possible. Another is that Dickerson will get some significant playing time in LF as part of that platoon so it's not really a choice you have to make -- the question is more against tough righties, do you prefer Dickerson/Stubbs, Gomes/Dickerson, or Gomes/Stubbs?

Spring~Fields

03-15-2010, 01:17 PM

What about the potential for an increase in SLG?

but his potential ceiling is higher than what Dickerson brings to the table. This team will need more of Stubbs' ceiling than what Dickerson will likely do.

How do you make that certain determination at this time for either player?

No one seems really sure of what either will do for certain, but, you seem to be able to make that determination, what supports that?

edabbs44

03-15-2010, 01:17 PM

Often we see it written where injuries are included as a something of a giving of a player the benefit of the doubt.

Kind of like, well player x, y or z had some injury problems, and some health issues last year, and this year we expect x, y, or z to be just fine. We have all read where it is written in a manner to excuse an outcome due to injuries etc. Why can’t Dickerson have that benefit in thought? I guess he will since he is being considered for playing time in both left and center.

Can we honestly play it both ways, though on the injury card? Then again if Dickerson can't outperform Stubbs numbers, do the Reds really even want Dickerson in LF?

Do you think that injuries hindered his performance last year? Did we see his numbers take a dip from what he has posted in his minor/major league career?

Spring~Fields

03-15-2010, 01:22 PM

Based on the available information, Dickerson's likely production in 2010 is greater than Stubbs' likely production. That said, both projections carry fairly big error bars and the ranges of possibilities overlap significantly.

For example, PECOTA has Stubbs 50th percentile projection at .237/.315/.358. Dickerson's is .254/.348/.404. That's not an insignificant difference. Of course, Stubbs' elite defense is likely to make up some if not all of that gap. A lot it of comes down to how well you think Dickerson plays CF defense.

But this question only really makes sense in a specific context. Are you asking just who will likely produce the most value in 2010? Because one of the major justifications for choosing Stubbs is that he has higher long-term upside and that he should get as much opportunity to reach that as possible. Another is that Dickerson will get some significant playing time in LF as part of that platoon so it's not really a choice you have to make -- the question is more against tough righties, do you prefer Dickerson/Stubbs, Gomes/Dickerson, or Gomes/Stubbs?

Thanks Rick. So what I perceive from reading is that they or we really can't say for certain at this time. That we will have to wait and to see what they produce if given the playing time in their positions and the PA/AB. Do I understand correctly? We can't really make definitive assertions concrete for either at this time?

Should they go for the higher probable production in 2010, while allowing the potenial higher upside to develop further?

edabbs44

03-15-2010, 01:22 PM

How do you make that certain determination at this time for either player?

No one seems really sure of what either will do for certain, but, you seem to be able to make that determination, what supports that?

Dickerson's lengthy minor and major league career, Stubbs' scouting reports and pedigree and common sense.

At Dickerson's age, we really can't expect anything out of the norm of what he has produced in previous years. Not at 28, unless he goes on the Balco training plan. Cincy doesn't need a light hitting OFer this season.

Stubbs, at 25, still is on the upward trajectory of his career. He has the potential to produce more offensively than Dickerson does. He is also, by most accounts, the superior defender. Where is the downside?

Dickerson is still here, he is still on the team. if Stubbs flops, Dickerson should move in. Same with Gomes in LF. I don't know why we should give Dickerson the job immediately when we have guys with higher offensive ceilings on the roster, especially when this team looks to need an offensive boost.

dougdirt

03-15-2010, 01:23 PM

Does Dickerson's .372 career BABIP concern you at all? Do you expect him to equal that this year and the coming years?

With his speed I figure he will be above average in BABIP, but I don't think he continues hanging out in the Ichiro range of BABIP.

nate

03-15-2010, 01:26 PM

Based on the available information, Dickerson's likely production in 2010 is greater than Stubbs' likely production. That said, both projections carry fairly big error bars and the ranges of possibilities overlap significantly.

For example, PECOTA has Stubbs 50th percentile projection at .237/.315/.358. Dickerson's is .254/.348/.404. That's not an insignificant difference. Of course, Stubbs' elite defense is likely to make up some if not all of that gap. A lot it of comes down to how well you think Dickerson plays CF defense.

But this question only really makes sense in a specific context. Are you asking just who will likely produce the most value in 2010? Because one of the major justifications for choosing Stubbs is that he has higher long-term upside and that he should get as much opportunity to reach that as possible. Another is that Dickerson will get some significant playing time in LF as part of that platoon so it's not really a choice you have to make -- the question is more against tough righties, do you prefer Dickerson/Stubbs, Gomes/Dickerson, or Gomes/Stubbs?

In terms of wOBA, it's interesting that Stubbs' best projection (Marcel: .341) is almost identical to Dickerson's worst project (CHONE: .338).

Of course, Stubbs is a better defender but Dickerson ain't exactly a slouch.

Spring~Fields

03-15-2010, 01:29 PM

Dickerson's lengthy minor and major league career, Stubbs' scouting reports and pedigree and common sense.

Dickerson is still here, he is still on the team. if Stubbs flops, Dickerson should move in. Same with Gomes in LF. I don't know why we should give Dickerson the job immediately when we have guys with higher offensive ceilings on the roster, especially when this team looks to need an offensive boost.

I guess I don't understand why there would be any hint or question of "if Stubbs flops" considering your first line of input in this response.

What I am getting is that people do think that one or both of these two can and very well might indeed flop, so I am wondering how we can be so sold on either, and be assertive or so positive about it? See?

_Sir_Charles_

03-15-2010, 01:33 PM

Dickerson's major league sample size is more than twice Stubbs'. So while neither is definitive, I'm pretty sure we "know" a lot more about Dickerson than Stubbs.

It's way too early to make a call but it's Stubbs' job to lose.

I see.

Yes, Chris' sample size is twice that of Drew's. I don't think anybody's arguing that. However, they're both still SMALL sample sizes. Anybody arguing THAT?

I say it's Stubbs' job to lose because since he took over last season, he's done NOTHING to lose the job. Chris had his shot and lost the job because he couldn't stay healthy. That's not saying that he won't get another shot or that he doesn't deserve another shot. But it would be completely unfair to just take the job away from Drew who's done nothing but produce at the major league level thus far. ST numbers don't count for squat. Nobody but the coaching staff knows what these players are working on or what they've got the players attempted to do at the dish. So for now, I'm just going to enjoy listening to baseball again after a long boring winter and then let the players sort out the matter during the season. I don't think anybody doubts that both Chris and Drew will make the team and head north. They'll both have their chances to prove who is the starter. But for now, it's Drew's turn (just like it was Chris' turn 2 seasons ago).

Spring~Fields

03-15-2010, 01:34 PM

With his speed I figure he will be above average in BABIP, but I don't think he continues hanging out in the Ichiro range of BABIP.

I got a dumb question, and you know I perceive you as the minor league man that has diligently followed these players far more than I……not even close.

Even though we say small samples like at the end of the season numbers or the spring training number don’t mean as much or maybe nothing. What are we seeing in Dickerson so far, doing better than Stubbs at the plate? If you are doing better than me at something, are we right to just toss that out ? When in fact you are?

RedsManRick

03-15-2010, 01:34 PM

Thanks Rick. So what I perceive from reading is that they or we really can't say for certain at this time. That we will have to wait and to see what they produce if given the playing time in their positions and the PA/AB. Do I understand correctly? We can't really make definitive assertions concrete for either at this time?

That's it in a nutshell. A case can be made either way. There's simply not enough of a track record for either guy to make a definitive argument.

And unfortunately, we're only going to get one reality. What happens in 2010 won't tell us whether or not the Reds made the right decision -- because the answer to that question requires comparing the outcome to the outcome of an alternate reality.

My answer is to give Dickerson the vast majority of the playing time in LF. Johnny Gomes' defense gives back most of his offensive value, making Dickerson a better option against RHP. If Stubbs really struggles in CF after a few hundred more PA, maybe you shift Gomes over and send Stubbs back to CF. But either way, I'm getting them both as many PA as I can.

edabbs44

03-15-2010, 01:36 PM

I guess I don't understand why there would be any hint or question of "if Stubbs flops" considering your first line of input in this response.

What I am getting is that people do think that one or both of these two can and very well might indeed flop, so I am wondering how we can be so sold on either, and be assertive or so positive about it? See?

Because I'd rather have the ceiling of both Gomes and Stubbs than what Dickerson will most likely bring to the team this season. The team needs that more than what Dickerson can do.

edabbs44

03-15-2010, 01:39 PM

That's it in a nutshell. A case can be made either way. There's simply not enough of a track record for either guy to make a definitive argument.

And unfortunately, we're only going to get one reality. What happens in 2010 won't tell us whether or not the Reds made the right decision -- because the answer to that question requires comparing the outcome to the outcome of an alternate reality.

My answer is to give Dickerson the vast majority of the playing time in LF. Johnny Gomes' defense gives back most of his offensive value, making Dickerson a better option against RHP. If Stubbs really struggles in CF after a few hundred more PA, maybe you shift Gomes over and send Stubbs back to CF. But either way, I'm getting them both as many PA as I can.

On a somewhat related topic, do you buy into defensive metrics enough to make this statement? There are many posTers here who believe that Gomes' defense was pretty decent last year, taking metrics out of the mix. Do we really think that the difference between both in the field is worth the potential of 150-200 pts of OPS?

Spring~Fields

03-15-2010, 01:40 PM

Do you think that injuries hindered his performance last year? Did we see his numbers take a dip from what he has posted in his minor/major league career?

I really can't make the or that determination, anymore than I can for the catcher, or thirdbaseman or others of this team that Mr. Baker has so often pointed out, in his mentioning of injuries having hurt the teams performance last year, or any year for that matter. If those injuries hurt the teams performance, I think it would be certain that it hurt the individuals performance, and like Mr. Baker implies, we really don't know what might have been performance wise had an injury or injuries not occured.

_Sir_Charles_

03-15-2010, 01:42 PM

On a somewhat related topic, do you buy into defensive metrics enough to make this statement? There are many posers here who believe that Gomes' defense was pretty decent last year, taking metrics out of the mix. Do we really think that the difference between both in the field is worth the potential of 150-200 pts of OPS?

Agreed. Add in the fact that you've got an elite, rangy CF'er parked right next to him and I think that diminishes the LF defense aspect even more. If Gomes continues to mash the ball, he's the starter because there's simply no way that Chris is going to out-hit Jonny IMO.

By the way, do I count as a "poser"? :O) I'm guessing that was supposed to be posTers...but one never knows. *grin*

Ron Madden

03-15-2010, 01:43 PM

Yes, Chris' sample size is twice that of Drew's. I don't think anybody's arguing that. However, they're both still SMALL sample sizes. Anybody arguing THAT?

I say it's Stubbs' job to lose because since he took over last season, he's done NOTHING to lose the job. Chris had his shot and lost the job because he couldn't stay healthy. That's not saying that he won't get another shot or that he doesn't deserve another shot. But it would be completely unfair to just take the job away from Drew who's done nothing but produce at the major league level thus far. ST numbers don't count for squat. Nobody but the coaching staff knows what these players are working on or what they've got the players attempted to do at the dish. So for now, I'm just going to enjoy listening to baseball again after a long boring winter and then let the players sort out the matter during the season. I don't think anybody doubts that both Chris and Drew will make the team and head north. They'll both have their chances to prove who is the starter. But for now, it's Drew's turn (just like it was Chris' turn 2 seasons ago).

Dickerson didn't loose his job due to injury, he lost it because the Reds signed Willy Taveras.

He came up at the end of the 2008 season just like Stubbs did at the end of the 2009 season.

I like both of them. I just don't understand why Stubbs should be handed the job.

edabbs44

03-15-2010, 01:44 PM

I really can't make the or that determination, anymore than I can for the catcher, or thirdbaseman or others of this team that Mr. Baker has so often pointed out, in his mentioning of injuries having hurt the teams performance last year, or any year for that matter. If hurt the teams performance I think it would be certain that it hurt the individuals performance, and like Mr. Baker implies, we really don't know what might have been performance wise had an injury or injuries not occured.

If Chris hit 25 hrs the previous year(s), then had a shoulder/leg/foot/hand/head/etc injury and hit 6 last year, I'd say that there was decent evidence to show that he potentially could bounce back if healthy.

But he doesn't have anything to bounce back to. He was in line with previous performance, so there isn't really anything there to expect except what he have seen in the past.

nate

03-15-2010, 01:45 PM

Yes, Chris' sample size is twice that of Drew's. I don't think anybody's arguing that. However, they're both still SMALL sample sizes. Anybody arguing THAT?

Dickerson has enough AB/PA to start talking about what he's capable of. With enough playing time, he'll have a full season's worth by June.

Stubbs doesn't and won't.

I say it's Stubbs' job to lose because since he took over last season, he's done NOTHING to lose the job. Chris had his shot and lost the job because he couldn't stay healthy.

But that's not really Dickerson's fault. Unless he was train surfing between games or has an unknown parkour hobby.

That's not saying that he won't get another shot or that he doesn't deserve another shot. But it would be completely unfair to just take the job away from Drew who's done nothing but produce at the major league level thus far.

Although I've been pleased with Stubbs' play, I wouldn't call what he did blowing the door down. He played awesome D and had a handful of decent ABs. I know, he hit a few HR. If those are the only ones he hits in his next 400 PA, has he still "produced" the same way?

No. That's why I say I'm happy with what he did but he has to sustain and improve upon that. That's the path we're on now. We've not arrived at a destination; lo, we've barely left.

ST numbers don't count for squat. Nobody but the coaching staff knows what these players are working on or what they've got the players attempted to do at the dish.

High five.

So for now, I'm just going to enjoy listening to baseball again after a long boring winter and then let the players sort out the matter during the season. I don't think anybody doubts that both Chris and Drew will make the team and head north. They'll both have their chances to prove who is the starter. But for now, it's Drew's turn (just like it was Chris' turn 2 seasons ago).

I don't think it should be anyone's "turn," unless they're making lineup decisions based on the daily clubhouse "Operation" tournament.

Spring~Fields

03-15-2010, 01:46 PM

Because I'd rather have the ceiling of both Gomes and Stubbs than what Dickerson will most likely bring to the team this season. The team needs that more than what Dickerson can do.

The team clearly needs more on base percentage which is the biggest factor in scoring runs vs SLG, and that OBP to be against right handed pitching where the most PA and AB are derived from.

I want the highest ceiling from all three, Stubbs, Gomes, and Dickerson as a fan. I don't see why all three cannot get a great deal of fielding and hitting time over the entire season. Of course I don't want to see a "flop" staying out there or leading off through April, May, June and July until someone wakes up like they did not with the previous CF's and leadoff batters until after all-star break, that seems entirely unecessary to me, if there is a flop at leadoff. I don't make the call, but if I did Stubbs would be in CF, and Dickerson in left if I did, and Stubbs would start out batting down in the order until he shows and is truly comfortable. I would do all I could to take the pressure off him.

dougdirt

03-15-2010, 01:51 PM

Lets look at the actual skillsets for Stubbs and Dickerson:
Strikeout rate - Dickerson is worse. Stubbs still isn't good.
Walk rate - Dickerson is better. Stubbs has a good track record of a good rate.
Power - Draw for now, though Stubbs has the higher ceiling of the two.
Speed - Stubbs, but Dickerson can run very well.
Stolen Base ability - Stubbs. Dickerson can steal some, but Stubbs is a 45 steal threat, while Dickerson is 25-30.
Defense - Stubbs is elite. Dickerson is merely good.

That is my take anyways. When just looking at those skillsets, I would say Stubbs should get the job if he doesn't do anything to lose it.

edabbs44

03-15-2010, 01:51 PM

The team clearly needs more on base percentage which is the biggest factor in scoring runs vs SLG, and that OBP to be against right handed pitching where the most PA and AB are derived from.

If the metrics state that OBP counts for more than SLG, that's fine and dandy. But we aren't talking about point for point. Dickerson might have a 30 point OBP advantage over Gomes or Stubbs, but Gomes might have a 150 point advantage in SLG. What will account for more runs, 30 pts in OBP or 150 in SLG over 500-600 PAs?

Plus, the mohawk has to count for something.

RedsManRick

03-15-2010, 01:56 PM

On a somewhat related topic, do you buy into defensive metrics enough to make this statement? There are many posTers here who believe that Gomes' defense was pretty decent last year, taking metrics out of the mix. Do we really think that the difference between both in the field is worth the potential of 150-200 pts of OPS?

Yes, I do. The methodologies are logical and robust. Do I believe they are accurate to the decimal point? Of course not. But then again, everything other than direct reporting of events carries a certain degree of error. Here's the bottom line for me with Gomes:

That's a pretty small sample size, granted. I'd love to have 4000 innings of data to work with. But small sample sizes don't have to be completely disregarded -- just handled with care. What are the odds that a guy who is really an average defender puts up those sorts of numbers in roughly a full season's worth of innings? Not bloody likely. Even if you put some very generous error bars around this, Gomes still comes out at a below average defender at best, giving runs back.

Combine that with an offensive performance that's not quite as outstanding as you might think due to his mediocre-at-best OBP and he's just not that productive as a player. His only asset is his power against LH pitching. He's a RH Dunn with a bit less power, a lot fewer walks and a bigger platoon split.

Net it all out and Dickerson is clearly the superior choice in LF against RH pitching. I'd be doing the following:

vR: Dickerson in LF, Stubbs in CF
vL: Gomes in LF, Stubbs in CF

Dickerson in CF whenever Stubbs needs a breather.

_Sir_Charles_

03-15-2010, 01:57 PM

Dickerson has enough AB/PA to start talking about what he's capable of. With enough playing time, he'll have a full season's worth by June.

Stubbs doesn't and won't.

Ummm...I'm not arguing, because I seriously don't know, but at what point do we make this determination? How many AB/PA are enough to start "speculating"? Players are known to suffer from a sophomore slump, if Chris is now approaching one full season, aren't we in for a really poor season from him coming up? All we CAN do is speculate at this time. I want a few full season's under a players belt before we can realistically plan to "expect" something from a player's upcoming season. Bruce isnt' there yet, neither's Joey IMO. Phillips is, Gomes is, Hernandez is, etc. They're just too darned young and erratic at this point IMO for true statistical projections (not that I could do one *grin*)

As for Chris losing the job due to injury...wasn't the name Wally Pipp? You've got to be on the field to keep the spot.

I agree that Stubbs hasn't "blown the doors off" either. But he's certainly played well enough to not lose the job based on his performance, wouldn't you say?

As for "turns", I may have phrased that poorly, but the concept remains the same. I don't put much (if any) stock in ST results. So that leaves what they did last season. I certainly didn't see anything last season to take the first opportunity away from Drew to start 2010. I understand that Dickerson's a fan favorite here (he's a fav of mine too), but it's all about production on the big league level here and about what have you done for me lately. Production-wise, they're both comparable...but the what have you done for me lately edge goes to Stubbs....for now.

edabbs44

03-15-2010, 02:03 PM

Yes, I do. The methodologies are logical and robust. Do I believe they are accurate to the decimal point? Of course not. But then again, everything other than direct reporting of events carries a certain degree of error. Here's the bottom line for me with Gomes:

That's a pretty small sample size, granted. I'd love to have 4000 innings of data to work with. But small sample sizes don't have to be completely disregarded -- just handled with care. What are the odds that a guy who is really an average defender puts up those sorts of numbers in roughly a full season's worth of innings? Not bloody likely. Even if you put some very generous error bars around this, Gomes still comes out at a below average defender at best, giving runs back.

Combine that with an offensive performance that's not quite as outstanding as you might think due to his mediocre-at-best OBP and he's just not that productive as a player. His only asset is his power against LH pitching. He's a RH Dunn with a bit less power, a lot fewer walks and a bigger platoon split.

Net it all out and Dickerson is clearly the superior choice in LF against RH pitching. I'd be doing the following:

vR: Dickerson in LF, Stubbs in CF
vL: Gomes in LF, Stubbs in CF

Dickerson in CF whenever Stubbs needs a breather.

Here's another question I have regarding some of these metrics. Do you think that adding players equate equally to all teams? I thought of this in a previous Nyjer Morgan / Ryan Braun discussion that some of us had.

For example, if a team was fairly strong defensively and weak offensively, would a player who was strong defensively and weak offensively be "worth" the same to that team than someone who was weak defensively and strong offensively, where "weak" and "strong" have the same meaning on the players' levels?

I would have to imagine that the team in question would benefit more from the stronger offensive player. I don't see how that would be untrue but I am interested to hear your thoughts.

Spring~Fields

03-15-2010, 02:10 PM

If Chris hit 25 hrs the previous year(s), then had a shoulder/leg/foot/hand/head/etc injury and hit 6 last year, I'd say that there was decent evidence to show that he potentially could bounce back if healthy.

But he doesn't have anything to bounce back to. He was in line with previous performance, so there isn't really anything there to expect except what he have seen in the past.

I think that I understand you now. Respectfully, you weight the SLG or power numbers greater than I do, in my valuing the on base percentage more than the SLG peformance. Though I love home runs as much as the next guy. I also have those "high hopes" like a fan that Gomes, Stubbs, and Dickerson surpass our fondest visions. But it is HOPE........I don't do well with hope unfortunately vs knowing. That's my problem, not your's.

dougdirt

03-15-2010, 02:10 PM

Here's another question I have regarding some of these metrics. Do you think that adding players equate equally to all teams? I thought of this in a previous Nyjer Morgan / Ryan Braun discussion that some of us had.

For example, if a team was fairly strong defensively and weak offensively, would a player who was strong defensively and weak offensively be "worth" the same to that team than someone who was weak defensively and strong offensively, where "weak" and "strong" have the same meaning on the players' levels?

I would have to imagine that the team in question would benefit more from the stronger offensive player. I don't see how that would be untrue but I am interested to hear your thoughts.

Do you believe that good defenders can truly take away ground from bad defenders on anything other than routine fly balls? I don't care how good Franklin Gutierrez is, he isn't catching balls in left field or right field. Those balls are going to need to be caught by the left fielder or right fielder. So those outs or non outs still fall on that one guy at that position. Its about total production, not offensive or defensive production.

RedsManRick

03-15-2010, 02:13 PM

Here's another question I have regarding some of these metrics. Do you think that adding players equate equally to all teams? I thought of this in a previous Nyjer Morgan / Ryan Braun discussion that some of us had.

For example, if a team was fairly strong defensively and weak offensively, would a player who was strong defensively and weak offensively be "worth" the same to that team than someone who was weak defensively and strong offensively, where "weak" and "strong" have the same meaning on the players' levels?

I would have to imagine that the team in question would benefit more from the stronger offensive player. I don't see how that would be untrue but I am interested to hear your thoughts.

You win by outscoring your opponent (obviously). Except at the very extremes, runs are runs, whether you're preventing them or scoring them. A look through history shows that you can be successful by primarily out-preventing, by primarily out-scoring, or by doing both. At the end of the day, it's the differential that matters.

It's actually a pretty intuitive point. Think of this way, are a you better team if you lose by an average score of 5-4 or 4-3?

If you limit the "worth" discussion to the players contribution to the team's chances of winning (without factoring in the cost side of things -- because offense and defense have historically been priced differently in the market), it doesn't matter on which side of the equation the player contributes. And focusing on the specific balance you have can lead you to take your eye of the real ball -- the differential.

edabbs44

03-15-2010, 02:14 PM

I think that I understand you now. Respectfully, you weight the SLG or power numbers greater than I do, in my valuing the on base percentage more than the SLG peformance. Though I love home runs as much as the next guy. I also have those "high hopes" like a fan that Gomes, Stubbs, and Dickerson surpass our fondest visions. But it is HOPE........I don't do well with hope unfortunately vs knowing. That's my problem, not your's.

I value SLG for this team more than OBP on a one player basis.

Spring~Fields

03-15-2010, 02:17 PM

If the metrics state that OBP counts for more than SLG, that's fine and dandy. But we aren't talking about point for point. Dickerson might have a 30 point OBP advantage over Gomes or Stubbs, but Gomes might have a 150 point advantage in SLG. What will account for more runs, 30 pts in OBP or 150 in SLG over 500-600 PAs?
Plus, the mohawk has to count for something.

I don't know :) I am sure other's here can tell you if that is possible and the probability of that happening in their case, and what that answer would be.

So if you can get Gomes in LF, and Stubbs in CF.

Will you make sure that the higher OBP is batting first and second, getting the most PA and AB on the season and that Phillips is not batting in cleanup against right handed pitching? And that if Stubbs or Cabrera are not the higher on base percentage batters, that they not be hitting one and two in front of those SLG players that you believe are important to runs scored? Because those higher SLG players effect will be diminished without guys on base in front of them more often.

I am all for what your saying if you can get that done. :)

edabbs44

03-15-2010, 02:18 PM

Do you believe that good defenders can truly take away ground from bad defenders on anything other than routine fly balls? I don't care how good Franklin Gutierrez is, he isn't catching balls in left field or right field. Those balls are going to need to be caught by the left fielder or right fielder. So those outs or non outs still fall on that one guy at that position. Its about total production, not offensive or defensive production.

I absolutely believe that.

I also believe that defense has become a little overrated at this point, and I think that people are rushing to get a good metric out there to quantify something that isn't easily quantifiable. So we are holding on to the first "proven" one, even though people will admit that it is flawed.

Spring~Fields

03-15-2010, 02:25 PM

I value SLG for this team more than OBP on a one player basis.

Well if we list all the players who will get the most playing time, and PA and AB, and not just one, I think we will see that the team is somewhat ineffective at getting on base against right handed pitching for the majority, and that by adding players who can get on base, that it will bring up that majority somewhat, though still not enough.

The majority of this team takes a pretty good hit in their performances at the plate when facing right handed pitching. Which effects runs scored opportunities and chances, and the potential runs scored and runs allowed differentiation on the season, which also effects wins and losses game by game and on the season.

How much power does one need to hit the ball out to right field at the GABP and just how many home runs will any player hit, if he can't hit well enough to begin with to show it in his OBP?

Isn't OBP indicative of a players various skills at the plate?

dougdirt

03-15-2010, 02:27 PM

I absolutely believe that.

I also believe that defense has become a little overrated at this point, and I think that people are rushing to get a good metric out there to quantify something that isn't easily quantifiable. So we are holding on to the first "proven" one, even though people will admit that it is flawed.

So why is it amazing when a guy makes a play in the gap if they should be expected to make plays in left or right field? I am not even talking defensive metrics at this point. Why should the center fielder be expected to make the plays in left or right field when its amazing when they make plays in the gap?

bucksfan2

03-15-2010, 02:33 PM

I absolutely believe that.

I also believe that defense has become a little overrated at this point, and I think that people are rushing to get a good metric out there to quantify something that isn't easily quantifiable. So we are holding on to the first "proven" one, even though people will admit that it is flawed.

I agree 100% with this. I think good defenders make the defenders surrounding them much better. I believe a LF like Dunn isn't as much of a liability with Stubbs in CF as there is with Jr. in CF.

I also believe that you need a balanced team. A team that is great at run prevention but awful at scoring runs is going to struggle and vice versa. IMO I think adding offense is more important in LF than having a plus defender.

edabbs44

03-15-2010, 02:36 PM

So why is it amazing when a guy makes a play in the gap if they should be expected to make plays in left or right field? I am not even talking defensive metrics at this point. Why should the center fielder be expected to make the plays in left or right field when its amazing when they make plays in the gap?

I'm not sure what you are getting at. I don't expect Stubbs to be making plays in LF.

dougdirt

03-15-2010, 02:37 PM

I'm not sure what you are getting at. I don't expect Stubbs to be making plays in LF.

Then why would he, or any other elite center fielder, make someone else easier to put on the field if he isn't making plays for that guy that another, better defender (in lf or rf) would make?

Spring~Fields

03-15-2010, 02:40 PM

Lets look at the actual skillsets for Stubbs and Dickerson:
Strikeout rate - Dickerson is worse. Stubbs still isn't good.
Walk rate - Dickerson is better. Stubbs has a good track record of a good rate.
Power - Draw for now, though Stubbs has the higher ceiling of the two.
Speed - Stubbs, but Dickerson can run very well.
Stolen Base ability - Stubbs. Dickerson can steal some, but Stubbs is a 45 steal threat, while Dickerson is 25-30.
Defense - Stubbs is elite. Dickerson is merely good.

That is my take anyways. When just looking at those skillsets, I would say Stubbs should get the job if he doesn't do anything to lose it.

Thanks doug. Pretty clear and conscise.

TRF

03-15-2010, 02:44 PM

Some interesting comments since i left for lunch.

People clamoring for Stubbs in CF an Gomes in LF, one reason cited was Dickerson couldn't stay healthy.

And you want to see if Johny Gomes can stay healthy? When he NEVER has?

And has anyone taken note that as Dickerson climbed the minor league ladder, his offense improved? He made adjustments. Stubbs on the other hand... was either tired or reworking his swing. again.

(reworking your swing is code for "I suck right now." Every player has used it at least once.)

If the difference between the two is 15 outs offensively (I think it's higher than that as I think CD is a .380+ OBP guy) what is the difference defensively? Take it another step. vs RH's last year the difference was almost 60 points. Can Stubbs glove make up 60 points of OBP.

Can anyone's?

edabbs44

03-15-2010, 02:48 PM

Then why would he, or any other elite center fielder, make someone else easier to put on the field if he isn't making plays for that guy that another, better defender (in lf or rf) would make?

Are you talking about feeling more comfortable playing Gomes in LF b/c of Stubbs' defensive talents?

I'm not sure that I said that in this thread but I do generally believe that, though maybe it isn't specific to Stubbs.

This team needs offense. They are fairly strong defensively in other areas. If the pitching staff and the rest of the defense is pretty good at limiting baserunners, having an arguably subpar defender at one position will probably hurt less than if the team is letting up more baserunners, generally. Especially if that arguably subpar defender can hit the ball a bit and the team is struggling to score runs.

edabbs44

03-15-2010, 02:50 PM

Some interesting comments since i left for lunch.

People clamoring for Stubbs in CF an Gomes in LF, one reason cited was Dickerson couldn't stay healthy.

And you want to see if Johny Gomes can stay healthy? When he NEVER has?

And has anyone taken note that as Dickerson climbed the minor league ladder, his offense improved? He made adjustments. Stubbs on the other hand... was either tired or reworking his swing. again.

(reworking your swing is code for "I suck right now." Every player has used it at least once.)

If the difference between the two is 15 outs offensively (I think it's higher than that as I think CD is a .380+ OBP guy) what is the difference defensively? Take it another step. vs RH's last year the difference was almost 60 points. Can Stubbs glove make up 60 points of OBP.

Can anyone's?

Why do you think that Dickerson is a .380+ OBP guy in the major leagues? I am interested to hear your reasoning.

nate

03-15-2010, 02:50 PM

Ummm...I'm not arguing, because I seriously don't know, but at what point do we make this determination? How many AB/PA are enough to start "speculating"?

As many as possible and I don't say that to be an ass.

Failing that, RMR had posted a fantastic chart last season detailing the number of "____" a player had to have in order to start talking about their true level of production. I believe one can maybe start having the tiniest inkling of a clue at around 300 AB for a hitter with 600 AB being what one would need to link Colonel Mustard, the lead pipe and the Conservatory.

Players are known to suffer from a sophomore slump, if Chris is now approaching one full season, aren't we in for a really poor season from him coming up?

It didn't seem to affect Joey Votto that much. Will it affect Jay Bruce? He kind of has a "sophomore" set of PAs.

I say, the "sophomore slump" is something for bored and unoriginal baseball broadcasters to entertain fans with during an April rain delay. That some players struggle in their second year isn't indicative of ALL players ALWAYS doing so. Nor is the chance that they MIGHT one I would expect any front office to figure into their roster construction.

So worrying about Dickerson getting into a "sophomore slump" seems like grasping at straws. If that's the case, why not send all players to the Carousel a la "Logan's Run" when they get 600 PAs?

All we CAN do is speculate at this time. I want a few full season's under a players belt before we can realistically plan to "expect" something from a player's upcoming season. Bruce isnt' there yet, neither's Joey IMO. Phillips is, Gomes is, Hernandez is, etc. They're just too darned young and erratic at this point IMO for true statistical projections (not that I could do one *grin*)

Projecting a player's performance and predicting a line of stats are two different things.

As for Chris losing the job due to injury...wasn't the name Wally Pipp? You've got to be on the field to keep the spot.

The name was "Willy Taveras."

I agree that Stubbs hasn't "blown the doors off" either. But he's certainly played well enough to not lose the job based on his performance, wouldn't you say?

He has the benefit of being the most recent CF for the Reds and turning in some exciting plays while doing so.

As for "turns", I may have phrased that poorly, but the concept remains the same. I don't put much (if any) stock in ST results. So that leaves what they did last season.

And it leaves what they do in spring training ASIDE from the stats. If Dusty thinks Stubbs is swinging the bat well, going deep into counts, happens to simply be "hiiting 'em where they are" or whatever, that's good enough for now. Same for all of the jobs that are "in competition."

I certainly didn't see anything last season to take the first opportunity away from Drew to start 2010. I understand that Dickerson's a fan favorite here (he's a fav of mine too), but it's all about production on the big league level here and about what have you done for me lately. ]Production-wise, they're both comparable...but the what have you done for me lately edge goes to Stubbs....for now.

I trust that managers are smarter than WHYDFML.

Even Dusty.

Maybe.

:cool:

Look, all this nonsense I just typed boils down to a degree of subtlety. That is, I don't believe in handing a brother the job based on 200 ABs. However, I do believe that he showed promise. I'm glad he started out heading in the right direction rather than crashing and burning. He still has a long way to go and the only way to find out if he can get where he needs to be is to wait and see. As I said, if the coaching staff thinks he's playing well despite not having a shiny stat-line, that's good enough reason for me.

Further, this is largely academic as the outfield is most likely to be some combination of Bruce/Stubbs/Dickerson/Gomes and one of Heisey/Wlad/Nix. I think the first four are set and it's a race for the 5th guy.

Raisor

03-15-2010, 02:53 PM

Why do you think that Dickerson is a .380+ OBP guy in the major leagues? I am interested to hear your reasoning.

well, in 421 major league PA's, he has been.

TRF

03-15-2010, 02:54 PM

Why do you think that Dickerson is a .380+ OBP guy in the major leagues? I am interested to hear your reasoning.

Dickerson has seen his OBP go up every year since 2005 (.325 at Sarasota, his low water mark). Also his power trends up over that time frame. A little blip at AA in 2007 for 30 games, but his overall trend in both OBP and SLG is up.

I certainly think he could hover around .380, and exceed it a few times over the next 5-7 years.

Ron Madden

03-15-2010, 02:55 PM

Ummm...I'm not arguing, because I seriously don't know, but at what point do we make this determination? How many AB/PA are enough to start "speculating"? Players are known to suffer from a sophomore slump, if Chris is now approaching one full season, aren't we in for a really poor season from him coming up? All we CAN do is speculate at this time. I want a few full season's under a players belt before we can realistically plan to "expect" something from a player's upcoming season. Bruce isnt' there yet, neither's Joey IMO. Phillips is, Gomes is, Hernandez is, etc. They're just too darned young and erratic at this point IMO for true statistical projections (not that I could do one *grin*)

As for Chris losing the job due to injury...wasn't the name Wally Pipp? You've got to be on the field to keep the spot.I agree that Stubbs hasn't "blown the doors off" either. But he's certainly played well enough to not lose the job based on his performance, wouldn't you say?

As for "turns", I may have phrased that poorly, but the concept remains the same. I don't put much (if any) stock in ST results. So that leaves what they did last season. I certainly didn't see anything last season to take the first opportunity away from Drew to start 2010. I understand that Dickerson's a fan favorite here (he's a fav of mine too), but it's all about production on the big league level here and about what have you done for me lately. Production-wise, they're both comparable...but the what have you done for me lately edge goes to Stubbs....for now.

Like I said on page 6 of this thread.

Dickerson didn't loose his job due to injury. He lost it because the Reds signed Willy Taveras.

TRF

03-15-2010, 02:58 PM

Like I said on page 5 of this thread.

Dickerson didn't loose his job due to injury. He lost it because the Reds signed Willy Taveras.

+1,000,000

edabbs44

03-15-2010, 03:00 PM

well, in 421 major league PA's, he has been.

And he was 20 points or so below in the minors over a much larger sample.

Plus, his babip has been sky high in cincy.

TRF

03-15-2010, 03:01 PM

And he was 20 points or so below in the minors over a much larger sample.

Plus, his babip has been sky high in cincy.

eehhhh no. As i stated, his OBP trends up. You are looking at the overall numbers of a developing player. The trends are far more important.

RedsManRick

03-15-2010, 03:07 PM

It's important to remember that over his career, Gomes has shown a massive platoon split. If you were to increase his PA, you'd be getting more of his less effective PA against righties at the expense of Dickerson's more effective PA.

Yes, Gomes performed better vR last year, but we can't simply assume he's reached some new plateau of ability. In fact, that's pretty unlikely. Throw the substantial defensive advantage Dickerson has and I think it's pretty difficult to make a case for Gomes as our full-time LF.

As far as the general question of OBP to SLG, the rule of thumb is that each point of OBP is worth about twice as much as a point of SLG in contributing to run production. And it's key to remember that players aren't islands of run production. What's good for the player is what's good for the team.

edabbs44

03-15-2010, 03:10 PM

eehhhh no. As i stated, his OBP trends up. You are looking at the overall numbers of a developing player. The trends are far more important.

I can buy the theory to an extent. Two follow up questions:

1) Could the "developing player" theory also be a guy who was becoming too old for his levels in the minors?

2) What are your thoughts on his .370+ BABIP in the majors?

Spring~Fields

03-15-2010, 03:11 PM

Further, this is largely academic as the outfield is most likely to be some combination of Bruce/Stubbs/Dickerson/Gomes and one of Heisey/Wlad/Nix. I think the first four are set and it's a race for the 5th guy.

"5th guy" or maybe even sixth?

Don't they or given player or players need consistent playing time, to get that larger sample to make a better assessment about players?

Can I give too much playing time and key word, and taking away “repetitions” and the advantages that those "repetitions" might bring to a Stubbs or Dickerson, by giving too much playing time to a Nix, Gomes and Balentien? Can I fragment the playing time or PA/AB of Dickerson and Stubbs so much that it gives an inaccurate read in their stats or hinders their abilities at the plate?

Won’t even you perform or improve more with more consistent playing time or live practice repetitions vs let’s say me on limited or fragmented exposure? You should improve shouldn’t you over me if we were both truly equal?

edabbs44

03-15-2010, 03:11 PM

It's important to remember that over his career, Gomes has shown a massive platoon split. If you were to increase his PA, you'd be getting more of his less effective PA against righties at the expense of Dickerson's more effective PA.

Yes, Gomes performed better vR last year, but we can't simply assume he's reached some new plateau of ability. In fact, that's pretty unlikely. Throw the substantial defensive advantage Dickerson has and I think it's pretty difficult to make a case for Gomes as our full-time LF.

As far as the general question of OBP to SLG, the rule of thumb is that each point of OBP is worth about twice as much as a point of SLG in contributing to run production. And it's key to remember that players aren't islands of run production. What's good for the player is what's good for the team.

He has mashed RHPs in two seasons where he was both healthy and getting regular at bats. Last year might not have been a complete outlier.

TheNext44

03-15-2010, 03:12 PM

Like I said on page 5 of this thread.

Dickerson didn't loose his job due to injury. He lost it because the Reds signed Willy Taveras.

Only he didn't.

He was the Reds everyday LF against RH pitching, but lost that job to Nix due to these numbers:

In fact, I remember a big debate on this board on how long Dusty should keep running him out there. Dusty finally listened and started playing Nix everyday against RH.

Taveras was signed to fill the empty LF position, not CF. He would play CF and Dickerson would move over to LF. Dickerson was never replaced by Taveras, at least not in the lineup.

Spring~Fields

03-15-2010, 03:17 PM

As far as the general question of OBP to SLG, the rule of thumb is that each point of OBP is worth about twice as much as a point of SLG in contributing to run production. And it's key to remember that players aren't islands of run production. What's good for the player is what's good for the team.

See that is what a good piece of knowledge and information can do. Clearly define. While I take a year and ten thousand words to try to say it, and don't get the job done.

You make it clear in one straight forward sentence.
:clap::clap::clap:

Ron Madden

03-15-2010, 03:20 PM

Only he didn't.

He was the Reds everyday LF against RH pitching, but lost that job to Nix due to these numbers:

In fact, I remember a big debate on this board on how long Dusty should keep running him out there. Dusty finally listened and started playing Nix everyday against RH.

Taveras was signed to fill the empty LF position, not CF. He would play CF and Dickerson would move over to LF. Dickerson was never replaced by Taveras, at least not in the lineup.

I believe Dickerson would have started in CF if Taveras had not been signed.

:)

TheNext44

03-15-2010, 03:26 PM

I believe Dickerson would have started in CF if Taveras had not been signed.

:)

I agree. Another reason to hate the Taveras signing.

But Taveras' signing did not kick Dickerson out of the lineup. It simply moved him to LF. He was moved to the bench when he slumped. To his credit, he didn't let that slow him down, and ended up with a fine season as a fourth outfielder. But if he doesn't slump, he's the starting LF against RH all season long, no matter who is playing CF.

nate

03-15-2010, 03:34 PM

"5th guy" or maybe even sixth?

Don't they or given player or players need consistent playing time, to get that larger sample to make a better assessment about players?

Can I give too much playing time and key word, and taking away “repetitions” and the advantages that those "repetitions" might bring to a Stubbs or Dickerson, by giving too much playing time to a Nix, Gomes and Balentien? Can I fragment the playing time or PA/AB of Dickerson and Stubbs so much that it gives an inaccurate read in their stats or hinders their abilities at the plate?

Won’t even you perform or improve more with more consistent playing time or live practice repetitions vs let’s say me on limited or fragmented exposure? You should improve shouldn’t you over me if we were both truly equal?

I'm not sure I follow. I'm just saying that the more of a sample we have to look at it, the more confident our expectation that a player is _______. Certainly, fragmented playing time may lead to inaccurate results and a player has to, at some point, establish himself enough to know what he can do.

TRF

03-15-2010, 03:36 PM

I can buy the theory to an extent. Two follow up questions:

1) Could the "developing player" theory also be a guy who was becoming too old for his levels in the minors?

Sure, it could be. I think CD has had normal, not uber prospect development. The only level he really repeated was AAA, and he was quoted as saying something clicked for him. He changed his offensive approach. He adjusted.

2) What are your thoughts on his .370+ BABIP in the majors?
That's a toughy. Is it sustainable? as doug points out, speed guys will see a higher babip, but in CD's case I like his BB rate and SLG. He can also put the bat on the ball pretty well, .275 BA last year. I can easily see .285 .380 .450 over 500+ AB's. I'm convinced that his trends indicate the kind of player he is and can be.

My biggest gripe about Stubbs has been the complete mishandling of him by the Reds. Stubbs never had the opportunity to learn how to adjust to pitchers that have adjusted to him. His sample size at A+ and AA are too smal, and he didn't tear up either league. He's never really outhit CD at any level except High A, but he did so in 30 fewer games. It might have held up... it might not have. But for the first time since 2007, we got to see nearly a full season from Stubbs at one level, 2009 AAA. The results were mixed at best. A fantastic May, an above average July, and three horrendous months made up his season.

2008 is the anomaly. It was the year he played at three levels. But at Sarasota, where he got the bulk of his PA's it was .705. That doesn't mean it wold have stayed that low, It's just interesting that he was promoted the way he was. I am convinced he was being quietly shopped. Just a hunch. He didn't kick the doors down like Bruce or Dunn, but he was promoted in a similar fashion.

TheNext44

03-15-2010, 03:45 PM

Sure, it could be. I think CD has had normal, not uber prospect development. The only level he really repeated was AAA, and he was quoted as saying something clicked for him. He changed his offensive approach. He adjusted.

Sounds like he was reworking his swing, which we all know is code for, "I suck right now." ;)

Spring~Fields

03-15-2010, 03:48 PM

I'm not sure I follow. I'm just saying that the more of a sample we have to look at it, the more confident our expectation that a player is _______. Certainly, fragmented playing time may lead to inaccurate results and a player has to, at some point, establish himself enough to know what he can do.

Oh I took too many words to say, I wonder if taking playing time and reps away from Stubbs and Dickerson could hinder their performances and what the larger sample might say. Vs ones that get a lot of consistent playing time...............I need to change my meds, keyboard or mouse. ;)

TRF

03-15-2010, 03:49 PM

Sounds like he was reworking his swing, which we all know is code for, "I suck right now." ;)

nope. that was what Stubbs was saying about his 2009 AAA season. Dickerson went from an .800 OPS season to an .863 OPS season. he adjusted and went from very good to very very good. Especially for a CF.

nate

03-15-2010, 03:57 PM

Oh I took too many words to say, I wonder if taking playing time and reps away from Stubbs and Dickerson could hinder their performances and what the larger sample might say. Vs ones that get a lot of consistent playing time...............I need to change my meds, keyboard or mouse. ;)

Right on. Well, sure...it can and I think RMR made the point earlier that the Reds may feel it's better to "invest" the playing time in Stubbs and his higher ceiling than Dickerson even if Dickerson has a higher "mezzanine."

TheNext44

03-15-2010, 04:41 PM

nope. that was what Stubbs was saying about his 2009 AAA season. Dickerson went from an .800 OPS season to an .863 OPS season. he adjusted and went from very good to very very good. Especially for a CF.

I know. I was just teasing ya'. :)

dougdirt

03-15-2010, 04:45 PM

Are you talking about feeling more comfortable playing Gomes in LF b/c of Stubbs' defensive talents?
I am talking about when you said that a great defender can make up for a bad defender. But then you said that he won't make plays in left or right field, so I am failing to understand how a great defender in CF makes any left fielder better or worse.

This team needs offense. They are fairly strong defensively in other areas. If the pitching staff and the rest of the defense is pretty good at limiting baserunners, having an arguably subpar defender at one position will probably hurt less than if the team is letting up more baserunners, generally. Especially if that arguably subpar defender can hit the ball a bit and the team is struggling to score runs.
You seem to be missing the point that you only need to score more than you allow. If a player saves runs with his glove, he can give them up with his bat. Likewise if player produces runs with his bat, he can give them up with his glove. You seem to be thinking that a player who produces more with his bat is going to be more valuable than the player who produces more with his glove assuming both have the same final production.

The team needs players who produce +runs. How they get them, I don't care. But there isn't just one way to get them. Offense+defense=value. It is the value that matters, not the offense or the defense.

edabbs44

03-15-2010, 05:00 PM

I am talking about when you said that a great defender can make up for a bad defender. But then you said that he won't make plays in left or right field, so I am failing to understand how a great defender in CF makes any left fielder better or worse.

Where exactly did I say that?

You seem to be missing the point that you only need to score more than you allow. If a player saves runs with his glove, he can give them up with his bat. Likewise if player produces runs with his bat, he can give them up with his glove. You seem to be thinking that a player who produces more with his bat is going to be more valuable than the player who produces more with his glove assuming both have the same final production.

I think that a player like that will mean more to a team's success if said team is hurting in the offensive department while being solid in the pitching/defensive department.

Here's a good illustration of what I am thinking: If you had a pitching staff of Johan, Lincecum, Cain, Sabathia and Halladay with a great bullpen and a lineup filled with Pokey Reese / Ozzie Smith types, would you rather have Nyjer Morgan from 2009 or Ryan Braun from 2009? The metrics tell us Morgan was the superior overall player b/c of his defense but you'd have to imagine his defensive affect would be lessened by having such a superior defense around him and pitching staff on his side, which would lead to having less runners on base and therefore lessening his defensive effectiveness. Plus, the team would need to have some offensive punch with a lineup like that, which would lead a reasonable person to assume that Braun is the easy choice here.

Is this the extreme of what I am saying? Yes. But I think this team has the potential to save enough runs at the other spots on the team to sacrifice a bit in order to score some runs as well.

The team needs players who produce +runs. How they get them, I don't care. But there isn't just one way to get them. Offense+defense=value. It is the value that matters, not the offense or the defense.

See above.

RedsManRick

03-15-2010, 05:23 PM

Is this the extreme of what I am saying? Yes. But I think this team has the potential to save enough runs at the other spots on the team to sacrifice a bit in order to score some runs as well. See above.

Your logic is sound at the very extremes. But I think your definition of extremes is way too soft. If you have a rotation of pitchers that allow the ball to be put in play way less than the usually staff, then a player's defensive ability will be slightly less valuable because he'll have fewer opportunities.

But at what point does that come in to play? I would posit that it's such a small effect as to be almost unobservable in light of the rest of variation we see. I might use it as a tie-breaker between two otherwise completely equal players, but rarely is that the real decision being made.

Based on our best estimates, Dickerson produced something in the 1.5-2.0 win range last year in 299 PA and 544.1 defensive innings. Gomes produced something in the 0.5-1.0 range in 281 PA and 522.1 defensive innings. So, is the adjustment you'd make to the relative values of offensive and defensive production enough to account for that difference?

Considering that the Reds are hardly at the extremes such as the example you provided, I find it really hard to accept that argument -- and especially without any attempt to quantify the effect at the extremes.

dougdirt

03-15-2010, 06:44 PM

Where exactly did I say that?

I said this:
Do you believe that good defenders can truly take away ground from bad defenders on anything other than routine fly balls? I don't care how good Franklin Gutierrez is, he isn't catching balls in left field or right field. Those balls are going to need to be caught by the left fielder or right fielder. So those outs or non outs still fall on that one guy at that position. Its about total production, not offensive or defensive production.

You replied with this:
I absolutely believe that.

edabbs44

03-15-2010, 07:55 PM

I said this:

You replied with this:

You are going to crack up, but I was agreeing with your conclusion not with your first sentence.

Poor posting on my part.

dougdirt

03-15-2010, 08:50 PM

You are going to crack up, but I was agreeing with your conclusion not with your first sentence.

Poor posting on my part.

Doh!

Perhaps poor reading comprehension on my part?

bucksfan2

03-16-2010, 09:01 AM

I think that a player like that will mean more to a team's success if said team is hurting in the offensive department while being solid in the pitching/defensive department.

Here's a good illustration of what I am thinking: If you had a pitching staff of Johan, Lincecum, Cain, Sabathia and Halladay with a great bullpen and a lineup filled with Pokey Reese / Ozzie Smith types, would you rather have Nyjer Morgan from 2009 or Ryan Braun from 2009? The metrics tell us Morgan was the superior overall player b/c of his defense but you'd have to imagine his defensive affect would be lessened by having such a superior defense around him and pitching staff on his side, which would lead to having less runners on base and therefore lessening his defensive effectiveness. Plus, the team would need to have some offensive punch with a lineup like that, which would lead a reasonable person to assume that Braun is the easy choice here.

Is this the extreme of what I am saying? Yes. But I think this team has the potential to save enough runs at the other spots on the team to sacrifice a bit in order to score some runs as well.

This has been discussed in another thread but I will bring it up again. It is much easier to find no hit defenders than it is to find good hitting players. Look at a guy like Adam Dunn, Carlos Lee or Jason Bay, awful defenders who have good bats. But even as bad of defenders as they are, they still are able to make plays in LF. If a routine fly ball is hit to them or even a line drive they they don't have to cover too much ground to get to, they will catch the ball.

Even if you take a very good defensive LF, Crawford, there are balls that he isn't going to get to. Heck there are going to be a lot of balls he can't get to. Heck if the pitcher is getting shelled, it doesn't really matter if Carl Crawford is in LF or Adam Dunn, line drives are going to find the turf. Crawford may be able to get to more balls than Dunn but he isn't going to get to all of them.

I think many have bought into the notion that defense is the new "moneyball". Which in my mind leads to defense being over rated. No matter how good at run prevention you are, the other team is going to score runs. You need to score runs in order to win a game. Even when the Reds would run an outfield out there of Dunn, Jr, and Pena they still would have games in which the opposition scored 1-2 runs. We are talking about major league players, they have the ability to turn batted balls into outs. Its not like beer league softball where you have a RF who runs in circles trying to catch the ball (although I did see Adam Dunn run around in circles and fall down one cold, windy opening day).

You also bring up a good point that if you have a great pitching staff and a weak offense you are going to struggle. And you make a very good point that often goes unnoticed in that you have to build a complete 25 man team. If you are great defensively but poor offensively then you need to concentrate on offense more. This upcoming season the Reds look to be challenged offensively. If they have too many games in which they score 3 runs or below they aren't going to win many baseball games.

jojo

03-16-2010, 09:16 AM

This has been discussed in another thread but I will bring it up again. It is much easier to find no hit defenders than it is to find good hitting players. Look at a guy like Adam Dunn, Carlos Lee or Jason Bay, awful defenders who have good bats. But even as bad of defenders as they are, they still are able to make plays in LF. If a routine fly ball is hit to them or even a line drive they they don't have to cover too much ground to get to, they will catch the ball.

Even if you take a very good defensive LF, Crawford, there are balls that he isn't going to get to. Heck there are going to be a lot of balls he can't get to. Heck if the pitcher is getting shelled, it doesn't really matter if Carl Crawford is in LF or Adam Dunn, line drives are going to find the turf. Crawford may be able to get to more balls than Dunn but he isn't going to get to all of them.

I think many have bought into the notion that defense is the new "moneyball". Which in my mind leads to defense being over rated. No matter how good at run prevention you are, the other team is going to score runs. You need to score runs in order to win a game. Even when the Reds would run an outfield out there of Dunn, Jr, and Pena they still would have games in which the opposition scored 1-2 runs. We are talking about major league players, they have the ability to turn batted balls into outs. Its not like beer league softball where you have a RF who runs in circles trying to catch the ball (although I did see Adam Dunn run around in circles and fall down one cold, windy opening day).

You also bring up a good point that if you have a great pitching staff and a weak offense you are going to struggle. And you make a very good point that often goes unnoticed in that you have to build a complete 25 man team. If you are great defensively but poor offensively then you need to concentrate on offense more. This upcoming season the Reds look to be challenged offensively. If they have too many games in which they score 3 runs or below they aren't going to win many baseball games.

The argument isn't "moneyball" related at all or blindly overvaluing defense in order to forcefit player evaluation through some moneyball prism.

It's really this straightforward-a player's total worth is the aggregate of his value in all phases of the game (this is just an extension of the scouting "tool's" concept really). In the simplest sense that means his total value is equal to his offensive value plus his defensive value.

Dunn's overall value is diminished by his defensive value. Randy Winn's overall value has been enhanced by his defensive value.

So the point is that there are a lot of ways to get to the same overall value. Generally getting there by grabbing an uber bat is just one way and usually it means investing in a player whose impact is overvalued.

bucksfan2

03-16-2010, 09:33 AM

So the point is that there are a lot of ways to get to the same overall value. Generally getting there by grabbing an uber bat is just one way and usually it means investing in a player whose impact is overvalued.

Overall value in regards to the individual player or in regards to the overall team?

jojo

03-16-2010, 09:36 AM

Overall value in regards to the individual player or in regards to the overall team?

Both.

RedsManRick

03-16-2010, 12:03 PM

The argument isn't "moneyball" related at all or blindly overvaluing defense in order to forcefit player evaluation through some moneyball prism.

It's really this straightforward-a player's total worth is the aggregate of his value in all phases of the game (this is just an extension of the scouting "tool's" concept really). In the simplest sense that means his total value is equal to his offensive value plus his defensive value.

Dunn's overall value is diminished by his defensive value. Randy Winn's overall value has been enhanced by his defensive value.

So the point is that there are a lot of ways to get to the same overall value. Generally getting there by grabbing an uber bat is just one way and usually it means investing in a player whose impact is overvalued.

Exactly. The "moneyball" approach simply means acquiring the most overall production for the least cost -- e.g. maximizing value. Rob Neyer made an insightful, if obvious, point in his blog yesterday. Teams have always taken this approach - it's just that the tools for measuring overall production relative to replacement have vastly improved over the last decade.

For example, why did the Red Sox go out and get Beltre and Cameron this year? Most people have speculated it's because they now value defense more than they used to. No so according to a Red Sox staff member, Tom Tippet. They just wanted to acquire the most wins as they could given their budget and those two just so happened to fit the bill. Now, that might suggest that the market currently undervalues defense (at least given how the Red Sox measure it), but it does not mean that defensive contributions are suddenly more important than they used to be. Just cheaper. Teams that are overly focused on getting a certain type of production simply make it harder for themselves to get good value.

There was a suggestion made earlier which bucksfan2 seems to be getting at again. Is there interaction between the skill sets of ballplayers? That is, is player A more valuable to team 1 versus team 2 because because of the types of skills he possesses. Or put another way, for a team with a good defense and a poor offense, is offensive production more valuable to them than to the average team?

I posit that baseball is not basketball or football where you truly need players with complimentary skills sets in order to maximize their combined value. While I'm sure there is some interaction, such as having good infielders on a team with groundball pitchers, the extent to which this exists in baseball is quite small and should not generally be used as your guiding principal -- and certainly not on the macro level of simple "team needs". Balance for balance's sake is overrated. With rare exception, such as the example above or with a righty pull hitter in Fenway (Adrian Beltre and Mike Cameron anyone?) where there is a clear interaction affect (meaning a certain skill is more valuable to some teams than others), player production and team production can be considered the same thing.

That all said, I'd love to delve further in to the topic to see the extent of those interaction affects. Just how much more valuable is that gold glove infielder to a team full of groundballers than he is to other teams? And what are are the other cases? I'd be shocked if there was any interaction affect worth more than a few runs.

nate

03-16-2010, 12:41 PM

That all said, I'd love to delve further in to the topic to see the extent of those interaction affects. Just how much more valuable is that gold glove infielder to a team full of groundballers than he is to other teams? And what are are the other cases? I'd be shocked if there was any interaction affect worth more than a few runs.

I'd find that study to be very interesting.

Reds1

03-16-2010, 12:47 PM

He might make the team, but the if Dickerson continues his platoon time is less and less if he doesn't start to show something. I've always wondered why Stubbs was always the guy. Dickerson when healthy has put up some nice numbers and in CF it his is best defensive spot. Let me just say it's nice to have options.

OnBaseMachine

03-16-2010, 06:52 PM

Hal McCoy article on Dickerson/Stubbs:

TUCSON, Ariz. — Chris Dickerson created more than a stir – it was the proverbial furor – when he spoke out during his first spring training interview.

He said, to paraphrase, that he didn’t understand why Drew Stubbs was the anointed center fielder, based on what he did during his September call-up last season.

Whether or not Dickerson was "right" in saying what he did to the press, he's definitely part of the conversation now -- and at least publicly, he wasn't before. And it puts the Reds in a real awkward situation if they really were planning on giving Stubbs a long leash and Dickerson clearly out hits him this spring.

Frankly, I put this one back on the Reds. Clearly the lines of communication broke down -- isn't that supposed to be Dusty's specialty?

KronoRed

03-16-2010, 09:08 PM

Frankly, I put this one back on the Reds. Clearly the lines of communication broke down -- isn't that supposed to be Dusty's specialty?

Dusty has his favorites, it's not a new thing.

OnBaseMachine

03-16-2010, 09:35 PM

Another article from C. Trent on Stubbs:

TUCSON, Ariz. - Maybe Drew Stubbs just needs people to ask him about struggling before every game.

On Tuesday before the Reds' 13-7 victory over the Diamondbacks at Tucson Electric Park, three different reporters asked Stubbs about his 2-for-20 start this spring. He went out and led off the game with a double and had a two-RBI triple in the second.

Then he played the game that day and had two hits. Then he played the next game and had two hits. And on Friday night, in front of a near full house in Goodyear Ballpark (most of them Mariners fans) he had three hits.

He singled his first two times. On his third trip, he bashed one off the right-center wall and flashed his biggest asset, raw speed. He circled the bases while Ichiro chased the ball, an inside the park home run.

Suddenly, the 25-year-old first-round draft pick in 2006 is hitting .276 and has refreshed his chances of being the Opening Day center fielder.

full article:
http://www.daytondailynews.com/o/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/cincinnatireds/

edabbs44

03-22-2010, 04:17 PM

Looks like Stubbs has ramped it up a bit.

dougdirt

03-22-2010, 04:24 PM

Looks like Stubbs has ramped it up a bit.

Coming into today he had an OPS over .950. I would say that he has most certainly turned it on.

Ron Madden

03-23-2010, 02:40 AM

Coming into today he had an OPS over .950. I would say that he has most certainly turned it on.

Here we go again. I guess Spring Training numbers don't amount to anything special until we want'em to.

LoganBuck

03-23-2010, 07:31 AM

Here we go again. I guess Spring Training numbers don't amount to anything special until we want'em to.

Spring training numbers don't mean squat. One side of the argument doesn't hold anymore water, than the other side of the argument. Which is exactly where this thread was a week ago.

dougdirt

03-23-2010, 01:11 PM

Here we go again. I guess Spring Training numbers don't amount to anything special until we want'em to.

I don't think they mean anything at all. But there is a contingency here who want to see Stubbs hit in spring training.

Spring~Fields

03-23-2010, 03:40 PM

I don't think they mean anything at all. But there is a contingency here who want to see Stubbs hit in spring training.

No question about his fiedling, so where should Stubbs bat in the lineup Doug?

dougdirt

03-23-2010, 03:48 PM

No question about his fiedling, so where should Stubbs bat in the lineup Doug?

In an ideal lineup, I think 6th would be best for now. It would let him be a little more aggressive and perhaps open up the power a little more.

Big Klu

03-23-2010, 06:22 PM

I don't think they mean anything at all. But there is a contingency here who want to see Stubbs hit in spring training.

I also think there is a contingency here who wants to see Stubbs not hit in spring training.

Spring~Fields

03-23-2010, 06:47 PM

I also think there is a contingency here who wants to see Stubbs not hit in spring training.

I think that no matter how much we like each of the outfield players from left, center to right fields, I think that we are right to be concerned if they will hit enough.

Plus we have been conditioned to believe from watching the past two years, that the manager has and will continue to run players out there that are failing to hit or get on base for prolonged periods of time. That wasn’t just center field either. I won’t even mention platoons, double switches, guys hitting well and then disappearing from the lineups, I know that I have been conditioned to expect it.

I can’t help but wonder what the poll results would be reading now if the people thought that Stubbs would not be leading off because of the manager factor.

I think he would be near unanimous for centerfield if that was the only consideration, especially if they thought that something reasonable like what Doug responded was going to be done in batting him sixth. I don’t think that they would be so stringent on the “he has to hit” part of the poll question. The manager and his past decisions, I think, is effecting our responses, because though he doesn’t play, he does effect.

So yeah, some of us are probably a bit overly sensitive in wanting these guys to hit, and to do well early, often and throughout. They have to do it with broken and fragmented playing time also under his strategies and theories.

The Reds are already giving up to many outs against right handed pitching and the season hasn't even started yet, if their splits at the major league level against right handed pitching means anything, and it does.

Spring~Fields

03-23-2010, 06:56 PM

In an ideal lineup, I think 6th would be best for now. It would let him be a little more aggressive and perhaps open up the power a little more.

I think that you're right.

mth123

03-23-2010, 07:30 PM

I started this by asking the question. Stubbs hit in the majors like he had never done in the minors. I think its legit to see if it would carry over after the off-season. FTR, Stubbs has answered the challenge and IMO should open the season as the Red's CF. It doesn't remove the skepticism that his minor league career calls for, but if the idea is (and it was) to wait and see if he fails, he's passed the first hurdle and shown that he may just have a major league stroke and not just a fluke.

I'd still keep the leash relatively short, but he should get at least enough time to accumulate some information about him. He's the CF IMO, but I'd re-evaluate around the end of May.

Ron Madden

03-24-2010, 02:38 AM

I also think there is a contingency here who wants to see Stubbs not hit in spring training.

I doubt that, I honestly do.

I believe there is a contingency here who want very much for everyone at the top, in the middle, or at the bottom of the starting lineup to have the skills to get on base at a reasonable clip. I really don't think there is any kind of conspiracy here.

I wish Drew Stubbs well.

My only concern was/is I don't think he has done enough to be handed the starting CF job during the off season, I believe any starting position should be earned. I just didn't/don't believe Drew Stubbs has had enough time to prove he deserves the starting job.

That's why I voted Yes he needs to hit to earn or keep the CF position. Nothing more nothing less.

fearofpopvol1

03-24-2010, 05:31 AM

I started this by asking the question. Stubbs hit in the majors like he had never done in the minors. I think its legit to see if it would carry over after the off-season. FTR, Stubbs has answered the challenge and IMO should open the season as the Red's CF. It doesn't remove the skepticism that his minor league career calls for, but if the idea is (and it was) to wait and see if he fails, he's passed the first hurdle and shown that he may just have a major league stroke and not just a fluke.

I'd still keep the leash relatively short, but he should get at least enough time to accumulate some information about him. He's the CF IMO, but I'd re-evaluate around the end of May.

Spot-on in my opinion.

membengal

03-24-2010, 06:45 AM

Man, Ron, I don't know. It has long since started to feel like certain folks on here, very good posters at that, are somewhat personally invested in Stubbs failing.

ETA: Not saying I am above that. I got sideways on Aurilia, and never ended up appreciating what he brought to the club like I should have. It happens, I know.

bucksfan2

03-24-2010, 08:14 AM

Man, Ron, I don't know. It has long since started to feel like certain folks on here, very good posters at that, are somewhat personally invested in Stubbs failing.

ETA: Not saying I am above that. I got sideways on Aurilia, and never ended up appreciating what he brought to the club like I should have. It happens, I know.

My feelings exactly. Stubbs sure has been a hot topic here on RZ.

I have had Reds players who I despised, mainly LaRue and Freel, but its odd to see a young, homegrown player like Stubbs come under as much fire here at RZ as he has.

WebScorpion

03-24-2010, 06:46 PM

I think it's a traditional Cincy thing. Cincinnatians prefer a working man type...lower draft pick who works hard to get the most out of what little talent he's been given. Rose, Sabo, Stynes, Freel...those are Cincy's favorite sons. They see Dickerson as this type of player and they see Stubbs as a prima donna 1st round pick who's been given everything without ever being forced to produce, simply because he has tremendous potential. They don't seem to realize he's worked every bit as hard, if not harder than, Dickerson. He was lucky to get the call up last season when Dickerson went down, but he's done nothing BUT produce since that call. He offers world class defense along with basically the same offense Dickerson has provided. You can fuss about what he never did in the minor leagues all you want, but he's in the Show now and he hasn't faltered since he made the team. I think it was Joe Morgan who said, "Speed and defense never slump." and IMO that's what will keep Stubbs in the lineup every day. :thumbup:

PS - Cesar Geronimo was never a very good hitter, but the BRM would never have existed without him.

Spring~Fields

03-24-2010, 06:55 PM

Stubbs with another HR today.
So have we found our cleanup batter in Stubbs to put Phillips where he belongs down in the order? Since we know who the leadoff batter should be :)

I don't think there's a question that Stubbs should be the starter no matter your personal feelings.

If the question was "Does he have to hit" and the answer was yes, then he's hit. If the answer is no, well he's hit anyway.

mth123

03-24-2010, 07:09 PM

I don't think there's a question that Stubbs should be the starter no matter your personal feelings.

If the question was "Does he have to hit" and the answer was yes, then he's hit. If the answer is no, well he's hit anyway.

Agreed.

Orenda

03-24-2010, 08:59 PM

I think it's a traditional Cincy thing. Cincinnatians prefer a working man type...lower draft pick who works hard to get the most out of what little talent he's been given. Rose, Sabo, Stynes, Freel...those are Cincy's favorite sons. They see Dickerson as this type of player and they see Stubbs as a prima donna 1st round pick who's been given everything without ever being forced to produce, simply because he has tremendous potential. They don't seem to realize he's worked every bit as hard, if not harder than, Dickerson. He was lucky to get the call up last season when Dickerson went down, but he's done nothing BUT produce since that call. He offers world class defense along with basically the same offense Dickerson has provided. You can fuss about what he never did in the minor leagues all you want, but he's in the Show now and he hasn't faltered since he made the team. I think it was Joe Morgan who said, "Speed and defense never slump." and IMO that's what will keep Stubbs in the lineup every day. :thumbup:

PS - Cesar Geronimo was never a very good hitter, but the BRM would never have existed without him.

I suspect your right that Cincy fans probably do enjoy hustler types who get the most out of their abilities...who doesn't? Although I'd say that they appreciate them rather than prefer them.

But in the case of Drew Stubbs i think some were upset he wasn't back to back NL Cy Young winner Tim Lincecum. In regards to his ability, Stubbs was a streaky hitter in the minors who had his bat questioned numerous times by scouts. Also he has yet to prove that he is better than Dickerson in my mind, (Dickerson btw, is a very good fluid athlete, to describe him as a hustler type is inaccurate). As long as one of them can get on base and play solid D I'll be content.

OnBaseMachine

03-25-2010, 12:09 AM

From C. Trent:

Not to be outdone, Drew Stubbs inched closer to .300, hitting a two-run homer in the team's 7-run eighth inning to raise his spring average to .297. Dickerson is now hitting .371.

"I'm getting them all at-bats and see what we come up with," Baker said. "We've got a good outfield and at the same time, Dickerson's played well. He's played very well. He's going to get some time in left field and probably some time in right field, we might go with who we think is best at that day and time and the matchups and whatever else. ... We'll see."

Man, Ron, I don't know. It has long since started to feel like certain folks on here, very good posters at that, are somewhat personally invested in Stubbs failing.

ETA: Not saying I am above that. I got sideways on Aurilia, and never ended up appreciating what he brought to the club like I should have. It happens, I know.

I can understand what you're saying.

I myself thought that Aurilia was being given to much playing time on teams that were going no where. I believe that was the perfect time to find out just who the young prospects were that could help the club in years to come.

With all that said I have NEVER rooted against Rich Aurilia or for any other Cincinnati Red to fail.

I predicted and HATED the signing of both Cory Patterson and Willy Taveras but I'm a Reds Fan and honestly hoped to be proven wrong.

I really believe that we are ALL CINCINNATI REDS FANS here at RedsZone.

Sometimes we have to stop and realize that just because someone has an opinion that differs from ours that doesn't make them less of a Fan in any way, shape or fashion.

membengal

03-25-2010, 06:33 AM

I hope you were not reading into what I wrote that I think anyone is "less of a fan" than I am based on their opinions on Stubbs. That seems a straw in search of a man.

Ron Madden

03-25-2010, 07:02 AM

I hope you were not reading into what I wrote that I think anyone is "less of a fan" than I am based on their opinions on Stubbs. That seems a straw in search of a man.

No. Not at all.

Just rambling on. I'm not very good at expressing myself. ;)

Roy Tucker

03-25-2010, 08:10 AM

Stubbs and Dickerson playing well is a nice problem to have. I like it when successful guys are battling it out for playing time.

Its a pretty common Reds fan phenomena. People form an opinion of a player and get invested in it. Debate occurs and that investment starts getting taken personally. Pretty soon, that opinion about the player supercedes the success of the team. And that Reds fan finds themselves painted into a corner. I know, I've done it.

edabbs44

03-25-2010, 08:23 AM

Dickerson's played well. He's played very well. He's going to get some time in left field and probably some time in right field, we might go with who we think is best at that day and time and the matchups and whatever else. ... We'll see.

Here's an angle that's been missing from all the discussions over the winter. Dickerson was being pimped in LF and CF, depending on who you spoke to. Everyone assumed that Bruce was the only guy entrenched in his spot in the OF.

Phhhl

03-25-2010, 08:41 AM

Both guys do things a little differently. I am pretty sure Gomes is not going to play every inning of every ballgame. There is going to be a ton of playing time for both Dickerson and Stubbs, so I really don't know what all the hand wringing is all about. People want to call this a good "problem", but I don't see it as a problem at all. It's just good. The 1999 team featured a very good platoon of Jeffrey Hammonds and Michael Tucker in right field, and I am certain that club would have been worse had McKeon chose one over the other in the spring and wrote him in the lineup every day. And, this is even better because we are talking about two dynamic players who can play all three outfield positions at an above average level, not just the corners, and probably hit in a number of spots in the lineup effectively.

To be in one camp or the other is just silly. They are both Reds, and if they continue this type of production into the season we are going to be in excellent shape.

Spring~Fields

03-25-2010, 09:18 AM

I can understand what you're saying.

I myself thought that Aurilia was being given to much playing time on teams that were going no where. I believe that was the perfect time to find out just who the young prospects were that could help the club in years to come.
With all that said I have NEVER rooted against Rich Aurilia or for any other Cincinnati Red to fail.

I predicted and HATED the signing of both Cory Patterson and Willy Taveras but I'm a Reds Fan and honestly hoped to be proven wrong.

That speaks to what I call the manager factor with his theories, strategies, and of course the outcomes.

He is going to do what he has done since he was with the Reds, and it will get about the same outcomes.

He's going to get some time in left field and probably some time in right field, we might go with who we think is best at that day and time and the matchups and whatever else. ... We'll see."

He is not good at what he is saying here, and especially with the players that he has had and has. What he does is what people are trying to work around by choosing who or what they think might work inspite of the manager. So they see HR ball, or SLG, never mind what pitching that was accomplished against. Just some pop, some power, they ignore that OBP generates the runs that generates the wins. Like Baker, they can't see the dynamics of OBP.

It doesn't matter as I am sure you agree who or what the name is that is playing where, but the results that they produce with that manager calling the shots. There hasn't been a primary CF for the Reds yet that did not have a bad year and regress even for them under that manager and what he tells them to do or suggests.

Did you happen to see the prediction by one of the "experts" over on Lance McCallisters blog, 77 - 85 fifth place behind St. Louis, Chicago, Milwaukee, and Houston. That's even worse than my negative predictions.

Predicted order of finish

http://www.700wlw.com/pages/lancesBlog.html?page=1

Runs Scored= Plate Appearances * OBP * Chances of scoring

The guy that wrote that just above, is intelligent and knows what he is talking about, Mr. Baker should give him a call.

OnBaseMachine

03-25-2010, 12:17 PM

Here's an angle that's been missing from all the discussions over the winter. Dickerson was being pimped in LF and CF, depending on who you spoke to. Everyone assumed that Bruce was the only guy entrenched in his spot in the OF.

The full quote was left out. Dusty said Dickerson may get an occasional start in RF if the opposing pitcher is a bad matchup for Jay Bruce.

Bruce should and will be an everyday player. I have no problem giving him a day off against a tough LHP. Same with Votto.

bucksfan2

03-25-2010, 12:19 PM

The full quote was left out. Dusty said Dickerson may get an occasional start in RF if the opposing pitcher is a bad matchup for Jay Bruce.

Bruce should and will be an everyday player. I have no problem giving him a day off against a tough LHP. Same with Votto.

How does Dickerson fit in then?

I agree that Bruce needs to be an everyday player. I do think that he needs to be given a day off occasionally regardless of pitcher.

I also think thought that Votto has even splits against righties and lefties.

dougdirt

03-25-2010, 01:00 PM

The full quote was left out. Dusty said Dickerson may get an occasional start in RF if the opposing pitcher is a bad matchup for Jay Bruce.

Bruce should and will be an everyday player. I have no problem giving him a day off against a tough LHP. Same with Votto.

Which is funny.... Dickerson has NEVER hit lefties, so why would he play in place of Jay? At least Jay hit lefties in the minors. Dickerson couldn't even do that. Did he magically figure them out at age 28? Just a confusing idea in my opinion.

OnBaseMachine

03-25-2010, 01:17 PM

Which is funny.... Dickerson has NEVER hit lefties, so why would he play in place of Jay? At least Jay hit lefties in the minors. Dickerson couldn't even do that. Did he magically figure them out at age 28? Just a confusing idea in my opinion.

That same thought crossed my mind when I originally read that quote from Dusty. On the (hopefully) rare day Bruce needs a day off vs a lefty, Gomes or another RH batter should be in the lineup seeing as how Dickerson struggles against LHP.

fearofpopvol1

03-26-2010, 05:54 AM

Not to get too far off topic, but wouldn't it make sense to platoon Dickerson in LF with Gomes?

membengal

03-26-2010, 06:40 AM

Yes. 100 times, yes. I assume that's what they have in mind. I hope so, anyway.

edabbs44

03-26-2010, 07:52 AM

Not to get too far off topic, but wouldn't it make sense to platoon Dickerson in LF with Gomes?

If Gomes were to hit RHPs like he did last year, not necessarily.

OnBaseMachine

03-30-2010, 04:51 PM

John Fay revisits the center field race:

Remember when Chris Dickerson was thoroughly was outhitting Drew Stubbs? Not anymore.

Yeah, I thought the Dickerson cheers were falling to the wayside. With Gomes and Stubbs hitting, it looks like he may be in a 4th OF role to start the season, which is possibly the best spot for him.

RedsManRick

03-30-2010, 06:30 PM

Sigh. I sure hope the Reds don't care as much about ST stats as people around here seem to do. It's reading tea leaves.

dougdirt

03-30-2010, 07:03 PM

Sigh. I sure hope the Reds don't care as much about ST stats as people around here seem to do. It's reading tea leaves.

I think that for guys like Dickerson and Stubbs they certainly do care about them.

TheNext44

03-30-2010, 07:35 PM

Sigh. I sure hope the Reds don't care as much about ST stats as people around here seem to do. It's reading tea leaves.

Considering the wide swing in numbers between these two in just a matter of a week, that's really the only conclusion to draw, beyond that both have proved that they belong in the big leagues.

RedsManRick

03-30-2010, 08:16 PM

I think that for guys like Dickerson and Stubbs they certainly do care about them.

That stats don't tell you anything predictive. If there are differences between them in terms of sustainable skills, they will either have shown up in past performances or can only be detected through careful scouting.

Maybe the Reds do care about their stats, but they shouldn't.

Spring~Fields

03-30-2010, 08:17 PM

Yeah, I thought the Dickerson cheers were falling to the wayside. With Gomes and Stubbs hitting, it looks like he may be in a 4th OF role to start the season, which is possibly the best spot for him.

Are you going to be consistent? :confused:
Since we are going by spring training stats.

HR's against minor league or poor pitching really help's that SLG and OPS, doesn't take but a few in those very small samples.

What about Janish, Francisco, and you know Bruce is having a worse spring this year than he did last year, remember how he did until his injury, following last spring? Sutton over Phillips? :)

Stubbs in center, Gomes in left, Balentien in right ? Janish at SS ? Platoon Rolen/Francisco? Balentien and Francisco batting leadoff and second slot, because they have nice OBP right now?

If you go by spring stats, looks like Ol Walt and Mr. Baker wasted some company money.

Chip R

03-30-2010, 08:35 PM

Which is funny.... Dickerson has NEVER hit lefties, so why would he play in place of Jay? At least Jay hit lefties in the minors. Dickerson couldn't even do that. Did he magically figure them out at age 28? Just a confusing idea in my opinion.

That is a bit odd. Almost setting Dickerson up to fail.

dougdirt

03-30-2010, 09:20 PM

That stats don't tell you anything predictive. If there are differences between them in terms of sustainable skills, they will either have shown up in past performances or can only be detected through careful scouting.

Maybe the Reds do care about their stats, but they shouldn't.

I know this. You know this. Do the Reds know this? I am not always so sure.

Ron Madden

03-31-2010, 02:46 AM

Let's not lose sight of the three options we were given to vote on in this poll.

TRF

03-31-2010, 09:34 AM

I voted he needs to hit and he has. I think he'll start of hot too. but if his approach is not markedly different from last year, pitchers will figure him out fast. And I still think Dickerson is the better choice as he has a longer track record at advanced levels of getting on base.

I don't care how good a player's defense is, it cannot offset a sub .700 OPS. Taveras might have looked ugly in the field, but his speed made him a plus defender. And it didn't matter much as he was an automatic out. Stubbs has to do better than a .320 OBP.

His minor league numbers suggest that is possible, but .320 is what we have from him so far, .370 from Dickerson.

edabbs44

03-31-2010, 09:43 AM

I voted he needs to hit and he has. I think he'll start of hot too. but if his approach is not markedly different from last year, pitchers will figure him out fast. And I still think Dickerson is the better choice as he has a longer track record at advanced levels of getting on base.

I don't care how good a player's defense is, it cannot offset a sub .700 OPS. Taveras might have looked ugly in the field, but his speed made him a plus defender. And it didn't matter much as he was an automatic out. Stubbs has to do better than a .320 OBP.

His minor league numbers suggest that is possible, but .320 is what we have from him so far, .370 from Dickerson.

FYI, when Stubbs was 24 he put up a .353 OBP in AAA (in addition to his .323 in the majors). Dickerson, at age 24, was putting up a .355 OBP in AA. This isn't apples to apples. Using Stubbs' .323 MLB OBP against him is a little bit unfair, especially when you consider that this team isn't about the short term and more about the long term.

The other thing unfair for Stubbs is that OBP plays such a huge part in his evaluation since he will be hitting leadoff when he plays. Not really Drew's fault, but I guess it is what it is.

Soi here's my question...if Dusty had a leadoff type SS (say the Easter Bunny gives him Reyes this weekend), would you still think that Dickerson is the better choice to play center?

In other words, is your choice of Dickerson based on the players themselves or the fact that they will be hitting leadoff?

TRF

03-31-2010, 10:41 AM

My choice is Dickerson because as he moved up in the organization, he got better. Nearly every step, he improved.

Stubbs performance has been more erratic, due in no small part to the poor way the Reds handled him. He was promoted too soon, too fast and almost without merit (2008). He never learned how to adjust to pitchers and staffs that adjusted to him. Now he has to really learn that at the major league level.

The truth is, Stubbs was in AAA in 2009 because of his draft slot, not his bat. And while his defense is fantastic, Dickerson was the team's best defender for three years prior to Stubbs arrival. But because of his draft slot they could "afford" to take their time with him.

Their career minor league numbers are similar, but that isn't the story. It's how they trend that is. Dickerson's trend up. Stubb's is a little more difficult to forecast, but his numbers do not trend up. Throw any excuse at it you want, bad toe, re working his swing, whatever. For a guy his size, he should have power. and except for September of last year, he's NEVER displayed it.

Dickerson, everyday in CF. That's my choice, and my reasons.

RedsManRick

03-31-2010, 10:43 AM

I know this. You know this. Do the Reds know this? I am not always so sure.

Sadly, a fair point.

edabbs44

03-31-2010, 11:04 AM

My choice is Dickerson because as he moved up in the organization, he got better. Nearly every step, he improved.

Stubbs performance has been more erratic, due in no small part to the poor way the Reds handled him. He was promoted too soon, too fast and almost without merit (2008). He never learned how to adjust to pitchers and staffs that adjusted to him. Now he has to really learn that at the major league level.

The truth is, Stubbs was in AAA in 2009 because of his draft slot, not his bat. And while his defense is fantastic, Dickerson was the team's best defender for three years prior to Stubbs arrival. But because of his draft slot they could "afford" to take their time with him.

Their career minor league numbers are similar, but that isn't the story. It's how they trend that is. Dickerson's trend up. Stubb's is a little more difficult to forecast, but his numbers do not trend up. Throw any excuse at it you want, bad toe, re working his swing, whatever. For a guy his size, he should have power. and except for September of last year, he's NEVER displayed it.

Dickerson, everyday in CF. That's my choice, and my reasons.

For me, I can't see Dickerson producing enough in 2010 to warrant either sitting Stubbs down or sending him to AAA at the outset. If Stubbs struggles, he can always go back down a level. These moves aren't permanent (or at least shouldn't be).

fearofpopvol1

03-31-2010, 01:35 PM

anyone get the sense that Dickerson would flourish in another organization? where he would be used properly?

bucksfan2

03-31-2010, 01:36 PM

anyone get the sense that Dickerson would flourish in another organization? where he would be used properly?

No.

LoganBuck

03-31-2010, 01:54 PM

Does this question need to be changed to "Does Dickerson need to hit?" He hasn't been playing very well as of late.

edabbs44

03-31-2010, 01:54 PM

anyone get the sense that Dickerson would flourish in another organization? where he would be used properly?

Nope.

dougdirt

03-31-2010, 01:58 PM

My choice is Dickerson because as he moved up in the organization, he got better. Nearly every step, he improved.

Stubbs performance has been more erratic, due in no small part to the poor way the Reds handled him. He was promoted too soon, too fast and almost without merit (2008). He never learned how to adjust to pitchers and staffs that adjusted to him. Now he has to really learn that at the major league level.

The truth is, Stubbs was in AAA in 2009 because of his draft slot, not his bat. And while his defense is fantastic, Dickerson was the team's best defender for three years prior to Stubbs arrival. But because of his draft slot they could "afford" to take their time with him.

Their career minor league numbers are similar, but that isn't the story. It's how they trend that is. Dickerson's trend up. Stubb's is a little more difficult to forecast, but his numbers do not trend up. Throw any excuse at it you want, bad toe, re working his swing, whatever. For a guy his size, he should have power. and except for September of last year, he's NEVER displayed it.

Dickerson, everyday in CF. That's my choice, and my reasons.

What is the difference in the skillset of the two? Skillsets should dictate numbers each guy puts up. Stubbs strikes out less and walks a little less. Stubbs hits for more power. Stubbs is a better base runner. All of that suggests that Stubbs should produce better offensive numbers between the two players.

You keep harping on Stubbs never showing power before. You simply aren't right there at all. First off, lets note that Stubbs didn't even slug .500 while in the majors. So how much power are we truly talking about him not showing? Secondly, while Stubbs has been consistently inconsistent in his minor league career there have absolutely been stretches of time where he has shown this power.

TRF

03-31-2010, 02:26 PM

anyone get the sense that Dickerson would flourish in another organization? where he would be used properly?

yep.

Ron Madden

03-31-2010, 02:27 PM

anyone get the sense that Dickerson would flourish in another organization? where he would be used properly?

I do.

Spring~Fields

03-31-2010, 02:31 PM

anyone get the sense that Dickerson would flourish in another organization? where he would be used properly?

anyone get the sense that Dickerson would flourish in another organization? where he would be used properly?

I think the perfect way to use him is as a 4th outfielder. He's been projected as that he is whole professional career, and outside a month at the end of 2008, he has consistently shown that that is his best role. Considering he can't hit lefties, the only other role I see him flourishing in, is as platoon player, which actually would be using him less than as a 4th outfielder.

bucksfan2

03-31-2010, 02:40 PM

Cream rises to the top.

I have found out in baseball that if you can play they will find a spot for you. If Dickerson is a good enough ball player the Reds will find a spot for him to play.

Spring~Fields

03-31-2010, 03:36 PM

Considering he can't hit lefties, the only other role I see him flourishing in, is as platoon player, which actually would be using him less than as a 4th outfielder.

The player that can’t hit left handed pitching is best suited for fourth outfielder or platoon. Correct?

How do we tell which batter avoids outs the most against left handed pitching?

What is the biggest factor to make that determination?

What is the bigger factor, making less outs against left handed pitching who the batters get the least amount of PA and AB against, or right handed pitching, who they get the most PA and AB against?

How do we tell which fourth outfielder above avoids making outs the most against right handed and left handed pitching?

If there is one thing that I learned from the disciples of Sabermetrics on RedsZone, respectfully, is, that it is about avoiding outs, or avoiding making outs. Based upon that, and your description regarding hitting against left handed pitching, and my point that we all know is true, that they receive more PA and AB against right handed pitching, who is the true fourth outfielders above?

Granted, I see one up there that doesn't even belong, which makes me remember some folks comments about the Reds thinking this or that, or believing a player belongs etc. I see Nix, then memories of McDonald, Patterson and Taveras when I see those remarks, which negates, that the Reds "think". But, this is not about that remark.

This is about fourth outfielders and their hitting or avoiding outs.

Most everyone said that "spring training stats are meaningless", I have read and accepted similiar comments about minor league stats, and September stats, so I had to use the MLB splits for the past two years.

We know what Sabermetrics thinks of small samples per se, aren't all of those above qualifying as small samples?

If the least of his OBP of .326 indicates that he can’t hit lefthanders, then doesn’t it have to follow that an OBP of .320 can’t hit right-handers if we are being consistent?

The fact that they can’t hit right-handers, would be worse, since they get most of their PA/AB from right-handed pitching, right? Where does that leave Bruce, Stubbs, and Gomes, under the umbrella of “platoon”?

We could say that they hit more homeruns, well, in that case I think they should be batting fourth in the place of Mr. Phillips.

Dusty would be proud. :luvu:
Players that can get on base with speed at the top of the order, power/SLG and mobility in the middle, experience with OBP and SLG in the 5/6 slot. I guess Jay Bruce could play against right handed pitching and platoon with Gomes.

reds44

03-31-2010, 04:54 PM

I thought Stubbs needed to hit this spring to be the CFer, and he has done so. Hopefully it continues into the regular season.

fearofpopvol1

03-31-2010, 05:45 PM

I think the perfect way to use him is as a 4th outfielder. He's been projected as that he is whole professional career, and outside a month at the end of 2008, he has consistently shown that that is his best role. Considering he can't hit lefties, the only other role I see him flourishing in, is as platoon player, which actually would be using him less than as a 4th outfielder.

i'm not sure about that. LH batters are going to see more time than RH batters will if they are platoon players. i think a LH platoon player would get more ABs than a 4th OF, but I could be wrong about that.

TheNext44

03-31-2010, 05:52 PM

i'm not sure about that. LH batters are going to see more time than RH batters will if they are platoon players. i think a LH platoon player would get more ABs than a 4th OF, but I could be wrong about that.

It depends on the team. I was going on the assumption that at least one OF will get injured during the season.

Ron Madden

04-01-2010, 02:35 AM

I thought Stubbs needed to hit this spring to be the CFer, and he has done so. Hopefully it continues into the regular season.

Ditto. :thumbup:

Redlegs

04-06-2010, 08:25 AM

I sure would like to see the kid play every single day in center field. What say you?

puca

04-06-2010, 08:56 AM

I sure would like to see the kid play every single day in center field. What say you?

I think he will for the most part. Dusty will sit him against some of the toughest right handers, and Carpenter certainly qualifies.

If he really starts scuffling, I suspect he would be sent to the minors rather than being benched or put into a platoon.

Redlegs

04-06-2010, 09:03 AM

I'm not really in favor of platooning, especially when it comes to your high draft picks or guys you think are going to be major components. If Stubbs is going to be the guy, allow him to experience facing guys like Carpenter. That's the only way to get better, IMO. We all know baseball is a mental game of adjustments. He has to be out there, I think.

Bumstead

04-06-2010, 09:29 AM

I sure would like to see the kid play every single day in center field. What say you?

Me too! But Dusty will be Dusty and Nix has to be his boy or he wouldn't be on the team.

dunner13

04-06-2010, 09:36 AM

I think the argument could be made that Dusty is trying to keep Stubb's confidence up, by sitting him against tough matchups. If he had started yesterday and struck out in his first two at bats he might have really gotten down and started to doubt whether he belonged, instead he came in towards the end of the game and got a couple of hits and is probably pretty pumped. If dusty plays him smartly and gives him some days to rest and pulls him against pitchers that he might really struggle against I think it could really help his development. Whats better, for Stubbs to finish the year with 450 at bats and hit over .300 or 550 at bats and hit .270 , obviously theres no way to prove that either of those would happen but if thats the theory behind the plan of sitting stubbs against tough pitchers then I can live with it. We cant have it both ways, we cant rip up dusty for not knowing how to handle young players then rip him up when he has a plan to help develop and build the confidence of a young player. Now if stubbs sits wednesday then forget all this, dustys an idiot.

Bumstead

04-06-2010, 09:56 AM

While I understand what you are saying, Stubbs clearly won the CF job between last year's call-up and spring training. Then he is benched on opening day...how is that good for his confidence? I'm glad he came out and got a couple of hits though. Nix being on the roster is not good for the Reds or Dusty, if Dusty's history can be relied upon; it's better than Neifi's presence would be but it's still bad if he remains a Dusty favorite.

Bum

Homer Bailey

04-06-2010, 10:00 AM

I'll go on record saying that Stubbs should be the everyday CF, and I think he will be.

I'll also go on record saying this thread will be 5 pages by mid-afternoon.

Redlegs

04-06-2010, 10:10 AM

I think the argument could be made that Dusty is trying to keep Stubb's confidence up, by sitting him against tough matchups. If he had started yesterday and struck out in his first two at bats he might have really gotten down and started to doubt whether he belonged, instead he came in towards the end of the game and got a couple of hits and is probably pretty pumped. If dusty plays him smartly and gives him some days to rest and pulls him against pitchers that he might really struggle against I think it could really help his development. Whats better, for Stubbs to finish the year with 450 at bats and hit over .300 or 550 at bats and hit .270 , obviously theres no way to prove that either of those would happen but if thats the theory behind the plan of sitting stubbs against tough pitchers then I can live with it. We cant have it both ways, we cant rip up dusty for not knowing how to handle young players then rip him up when he has a plan to help develop and build the confidence of a young player. Now if stubbs sits wednesday then forget all this, dustys an idiot.I understand your point, but I think you throw the kid in there and let him experience it. Hitting .270 and facing everyone may have better long term gains for the ballplayer and the team. At least that's the way I see it.

membengal

04-06-2010, 10:12 AM

Stubbs went 2 for 2 yesterday. I am guessing that his emotional scars from not starting in his first Opening Day will heal soon. He's going to play plenty.

bucksfan2

04-06-2010, 10:25 AM

I am fairly certain that Dusty sat Stubbs because it was opening day more than anything else. Had this been the 30th game of the season and the Reds were facing Carpenter I don't think it would have been much of an issue. But I think sending Stubbs to the plate for the first Reds batter of the season was Dusty's reasoning for sitting him for half the game. I really don't have an issue with this. If Dusty starts to sit him against whom he considers tough RH is when I am going to have an issue with that.

Redlegs

04-06-2010, 10:32 AM

According to Dusty's comments, it was soley due to the fact Carpenter was pitching. There may have been underlying reasons, but I doubt it. Dusty's already making internet waves today......

Me too! But Dusty will be Dusty and Nix has to be his boy or he wouldn't be on the team.

Me too. Stubbs looks like he can hit, get on base and make something good happen. I wasn’t sure about the guy, or about Dickerson, but Stubbs looks encouraging at this point, maybe next week he doesn‘t, but he does now in the present moment.

I thought that the objective of bringing up what might be the best players with the team, was to play what might be the best players.

So is the manager going to play what might be his best or is he going to play musical chairs until after August like we think we have seen in the past? Or is he going to make decisions on how he interprets the back of the baseball card and match ups, how has that worked out in the past? He must have lost the baseball cards for Cabrera, Phillips and Nix. While deferring to the cards that say, inflexibility is a must, centerfield and shortstop always bats first and second regardless of their abilities or who the pitcher is that they are facing, even if they are tough right-handers.

That tough right hander thought takes a beating when one considers that Phillips struggles against right handed pitching, and he was batting fourth. When it doesn’t appear that a player like Phillips is being placed in a position where he has a greater chance to succeed and contribute. Anyone check to see how the aging Cabrera does against right-handers, let alone tough right-handers? Are you sure that you want what Cabrera and Phillips leads with in their leadership?

Instead we get some propaganda about Nix starting over a Stubbs or Gomes, and an aging shortstop that even I can see his declining numbers, batting second. While we are relentlessly told that Phillips who regresses against right handed pitching is the best qualified for batting cleanup, because we are told that the Reds have no other player who can hit the ball in the 4 slot. People have heard that so much and read it so much that they have started to believe it. When it ought to be a “ wait a minute moment”.

So studies show that lineups don’t matter in the game to game, but, it just might matter who the eight players actually are on the field receiving the most PA/AB in that lineup and what they can do with those PA/AB at a higher percentage of the time, in a timely manner.

Throw Nix and Dickerson to the curb and play Stubbs and Gomes everyday, I am confident that it will be fine with any of us that are Reds fans, as long as the Reds win more games than they lose.

Though nothing is going to matter if the pitching can’t help keep the runs allowed down per game. Wasn’t it the pitching that lost the game yesterday and throughout spring training that is absolutely meaningless. Just one game and spring training is meaningless, problem is, they become cumulative and one tends to follow another.

Ah the Reds just need to face some left handed pitchers and some AAAA pitchers and they will look great then, we’ll think they are getting it together and coming around. Shoot we will even see posts about people going to have to eat some crow because players X, Y or Z had a great day or two against mediocre pitching.

We’ve seen, read, and heard all this before, show us something new and something real. Give the optimist and the hopeful a reason to be right.

Degenerate39

04-06-2010, 12:53 PM

Stubbs is my favorites of the outfielders. I think he has the best speed and defense out of the bunch with a little bit of power. Possibly able to hit 20 homers in a whole season while stealing 30 to 40 bases. He's probably the closest thing to a legit lead off that the Reds have.

I'm not knocking Dickerson but I'm not sold on him like a good amount of Redszoners are. Hopefully I'm wrong about him but I think he's been overrated by this site. Stubbs should be getting 140 to 150 starts. If his average isnt good enough then drop him down in the line up but based on his defense he needs to be starting

Ron Madden

04-06-2010, 01:21 PM

I'm sure Stubbs will get the overwhelming majority of starts in CF if he keeps playing the way he has been.

I think Bruce will get most of the playing time in RF and Dickerson and Gomes will share time in LF.

I just wish they would'a kept Balentien instead of Nix.

Captain Hook

04-06-2010, 01:30 PM

Seems like to me that the Reds have 3 guys in Nix,Gomes and Dickerson that would make good 4th or 5th outfielders on most teams.It's a fair bet that one of those guys will receive more playing time then Stubbs this season under Dusty's way of doing things. Stubbs could meet or even exceed expectations and Baker will come up with some kind of logic for sitting him more then he should just like he did last year with playing Taveras more then he should have.I hope I'm wrong and that it doesn't take a injury to get Stubbs playing every day.

membengal

04-06-2010, 01:31 PM

Seems like to me that the Reds have 3 guys in Nix,Gomes and Dickerson that would make good 4th or 5th outfielders on most teams.It's a fair bet that one of those guys will receive more playing time then Stubbs this season under Dusty's way of doing things. Stubbs could meet or even exceed expectations and Baker will come up with some kind of logic for sitting him more then he should just like he did last year with playing Taveras more then he should have.I hope I'm wrong and that it doesn't take a injury to get Stubbs playing every day.

I just don't think that is true.

Kc61

04-06-2010, 01:31 PM

Stubbs has a combination of skills and tools that is quite impressive. Great defender. Excellent power. The Mike Cameron comparisons on RedsZone from Stubbs' early years in the minors may be quite accurate.

I hope the Reds know what they have in this player. He has great ability. Doug Dirt deserves credit for his strong support of Stubbs as a prospect.

Dickerson has some of the same abilities but Stubbs' power gives him a big advantage.

As I watched the Reds yesterday, I started to think that the team would be better off just going with the young talent and fewer veterans. Some of these young players, Votto, Bruce, Stubbs, IMO Francisco, Janish defensively, Bailey, Cueto, and the AAA group are very impressive and could achieve a great deal as a team.

Captain Hook

04-06-2010, 02:30 PM

I just don't think that is true.

Probably not.I'm just saying that with Baker you never know.The opening day lineup and Dusty's track record for not always playing his best options is enough for me to believe that it's at least a possibility.

pedro

04-06-2010, 02:40 PM

Probably not.I'm just saying that with Baker you never know.The opening day lineup and Dusty's track record for not always playing his best options is enough for me to believe that it's at least a possibility.

Not a chance in hell IMO.

reds44

04-06-2010, 02:44 PM

When has Dusty sat a younger player in favor of lesser options?

Dickerson? Maybe? That's the only example I can think of.

Votto didn't start on OD two years ago either.

Captain Hook

04-06-2010, 02:45 PM

Stubbs has a combination of skills and tools that is quite impressive. Great defender. Excellent power. The Mike Cameron comparisons on RedsZone from Stubbs' early years in the minors may be quite accurate.

I hope the Reds know what they have in this player. He has great ability. Doug Dirt deserves credit for his strong support of Stubbs as a prospect.

Dickerson has some of the same abilities but Stubbs' power gives him a big advantage.

As I watched the Reds yesterday, I started to think that the team would be better off just going with the young talent and fewer veterans. Some of these young players, Votto, Bruce, Stubbs, IMO Francisco, Janish defensively, Bailey, Cueto, and the AAA group are very impressive and could achieve a great deal as a team.

I agree completely but it's too late now.Dusty has his hand full of vets that will surely see more then their fair share of PT.There were times last season that I forgot Janish and Hanigan was even on the team and I think we can all agree that when Dickerson was healthy he should've been playing every day in CF.We will probably get to see Dickerson in CF more this year now that there is a better option.

Once again I hope I'm completely wrong.I could see Dusty playing Stubbs in CF most of the time but Janish, Francisco and some of the younger guys will have to wait their turn until Walt clears the way for them by shipping some of the vets off.

Hoosier Red

04-06-2010, 03:18 PM

I agree completely but it's too late now.Dusty has his hand full of vets that will surely see more then their fair share of PT.There were times last season that I forgot Janish and Hanigan was even on the team and I think we can all agree that when Dickerson was healthy he should've been playing every day in CF.
We will probably get to see Dickerson in CF more this year now that there is a better option.

Once again I hope I'm completely wrong.I could see Dusty playing Stubbs in CF most of the time but Janish, Francisco and some of the younger guys will have to wait their turn until Walt clears the way for them by shipping some of the vets off.

Janish had a .601 OPS last year so it's not like he was demanding playing time with his bat.
Hairston was .703 and A-Gon was .554 while with the Reds.

I couldn't find any examples of Hanigan not playing for more than 5 calendar days off aside from August 23 through September 9 when I think he was on the DL with his neck injury.

Dickerson had a slow start to the season(did you know on May 1, Taveres had a higher OPS?) and battled injuries. He did start 23 games in CF after he came back and I'm going to guess that's the majority of games he was available for between stints on the DL. Than when Stubbs came up he started every day.

I'm sure there are examples of young players blatantly outplaying veterans and still getting stuck on the bench but I've yet to see them with Dusty and the Reds.

bucksfan2

04-06-2010, 03:30 PM

I'm sure there are examples of young players blatantly outplaying veterans and still getting stuck on the bench but I've yet to see them with Dusty and the Reds.

During Dusty's time with the Reds this has been proven to be a blatant misconception. Dusty stuck with young players for too long if you ask me. He kept running Bruce out there last season even though he was struggling nightly. He inserted Edwin into the lineup day in day out even though he had proven his game wasn't up to snuff.

I remember when Hatteberg was going to take PT away from Votto. And when Taveras would take back CF over Stubbs when healthy. You can dislike Dusty all you want. And lineups like OD are enough to drive even the Dusty backers bonkers, but can we stop with the "Dusty vet love theory."

Captain Hook

04-06-2010, 04:02 PM

Janish had a .601 OPS last year so it's not like he was demanding playing time with his bat.
Hairston was .703 and A-Gon was .554 while with the Reds.

I couldn't find any examples of Hanigan not playing for more than 5 calendar days off aside from August 23 through September 9 when I think he was on the DL with his neck injury.

Dickerson had a slow start to the season(did you know on May 1, Taveres had a higher OPS?) and battled injuries. He did start 23 games in CF after he came back and I'm going to guess that's the majority of games he was available for between stints on the DL. Than when Stubbs came up he started every day.

I'm sure there are examples of young players blatantly outplaying veterans and still getting stuck on the bench but I've yet to see them with Dusty and the Reds.

It just seems like last year I spent a lot of time trying to figure out what Dusty was thinking as far as how he was distributing the PT.Maybe it is a misconception that he sticks with vets and I'm imagining things.

FWIW I do believe that Yanish should have played much more often even with the low OPS considering that our everyday and I do mean everyday SS wasn't doing any better.That goes for Hanigan for Hernandez and anyone else with a pulse in CF for Taveras.I do get why these are not great arguments that Dusty plays vets ahead of youngster though.

I hope, for the sake of this season that everyones faith in Dusty's everyday roster decisions isn't misplaced and that my memory of how things played out last season is way off.

Spring~Fields

04-06-2010, 04:04 PM

I agree completely but it's too late now.Dusty has his hand full of vets that will surely see more then their fair share of PT.There were times last season that I forgot Janish and Hanigan was even on the team and I think we can all agree that when Dickerson was healthy he should've been playing every day in CF.We will probably get to see Dickerson in CF more this year now that there is a better option.

Once again I hope I'm completely wrong.I could see Dusty playing Stubbs in CF most of the time but Janish, Francisco and some of the younger guys will have to wait their turn until Walt clears the way for them by shipping some of the vets off.

I agree with KC and you.

1. The Reds want major league experience, they or someone is afraid that the young guys can’t cut it. Even though they are much cheaper and the fans are excited to see them play.

1A. Even though they speak confidently of the younger players, they don’t show confidence in them.

2. The experienced vets play even when they are not outstanding in the declining years.

3. They’ll say the younger players just don’t have the experience.

4. They’ll say that the younger players need to be playing everyday to get that experience.

5. They will want them to get that everyday playing experience and playing time in the minors.

6. Then they will say but, player x, y, or z has never played at the major league level and doesn’t have experience, he has only played in the minors.

7. They say, you can’t determine what a player will do at the major league level necessarily by what they did or do at the minor league level.

8. Then when one does sneak onto the roster by default, he may or may not get consistent playing time to get that required major league experience. If he does well, that will guarantee his playing time, not with the Reds.

9. But his playing time is limited under some logic or respect for the aging and declining vets that the organization might have just signed for some significant dollars to them.

10. Then they say a young player has to go through the adjustment periods, ok. So then the young players need to be playing major league baseball for a year or two, but they can’t because they don’t have the experience.

It becomes a cycle of reasons and justifications, but are they true? How do we know?

I honestly don’t have a clue what Stubbs, Dickerson, Gomes, Bruce, Hanigan, Janish or maybe even Nix, or other young players can actually do if you held my feet to the fire to PROVE it.

Because anyone can “yeah but” you to death in finding, yeah but, flaws, that each of the young guys and veterans alike have that they are always working on.

Only way that I know to find out is for them and other young guys to get a lot of playing time and to find out over time and repetitions at the major league level.

Many say that the Reds are a year or two away to begin with, so what is the problem getting the younger players that prerequisite experience to have them ready in a year or two, are the declining vets a part of the future?

Then again I don’t think the Reds have to go as long as they did with an Edwin Encarncion either

Spring~Fields

04-06-2010, 04:21 PM

I hope, for the sake of this season that everyones faith in Dusty's everyday roster decisions isn't misplaced and that my memory of how things played out last season is way off.

It's not your imagination, you're simply thinking that you are already seeing what you witnessed in 2008 and 2009 here and again in 2010 and of course you don't want to experience that again. Who does? I am not going to look up 2008 to come up with Patterson over Bruce, or that aged catcher over the other's and Hairston or whoever. Just to read "yeah but" counter responses, when the Reds roster and the ages don't really look as young as they spin it from top to bottom this year either.

They've spun that "young" so much that one would think that there are a bunch of 19-23 years olds out there all over the place. Look again.

Hoosier Red

04-06-2010, 04:48 PM

It's not your imagination, you're simply thinking that you are already seeing what you witnessed in 2008 and 2009 here and again in 2010 and of course you don't want to experience that again. Who does? I am not going to look up 2008 to come up with Patterson over Bruce, or that aged catcher over the other's and Hairston or whoever. Just to read "yeah but" counter responses, when the Reds roster and the ages don't really look as young as they spin it from top to bottom this year either.

They've spun that "young" so much that one would think that there are a bunch of 19-23 years olds out there all over the place. Look again.

Yes who would want to let facts and actual playing time get in the way of a good rant.

Do vets get more rope than young guys, (especially not so highly touted young guys?) Absolutely.

Should vets get more rope than young guys? Absolutely. Right or wrong Alex Gonzalez had a track record to look back on and say this guy is capable of a .700 OPS. If he wasn't hitting that well, he needs to be given time to play his way out of a slump. Different guys get different ropes. Do you pull Joey Votto out if he's batting .220 at the end of April?

TMBS I agree that Gonzo got a lot more rope than I would have given him last year. Through June 18 he had played in 49 out of 65 games.
After that though it was a pretty steady mix of Hairston and Janish as he only played in 20 games for the Reds the rest of the year.

HokieRed

04-06-2010, 06:35 PM

The whole CF question is really going to clarify itself very easily: right now, both easily the best player and the one with the highest upside is Drew Stubbs. His approach at the plate, his discipline, his hand speed are vastly superior to CD's. Maybe even Dusty will be able to recognize this.

Spring~Fields

04-06-2010, 07:19 PM

Yes who would want to let facts and actual playing time get in the way of a good rant.

And what are those facts?

Do vets get more rope than young guys, (especially not so highly touted young guys?) Absolutely.

What performance and production numbers supports that each aging and declining vet absolutely deserved and merited playing time over the younger cheaper players, and the results were? Speaking just of the Reds only.

Should vets get more rope than young guys? Absolutely.

Define vets and the quality or performance levels as supported by something more than your or my or Bakers opinions that makes it absolute. Other than some old paradigms in thinking. Like in thinking the CF leads off and SS bats second.

We have two years speaking for themselves by the results, one more year is not a problem. The results will speak for themselves. Not our opinions.

Hoosier Red

04-07-2010, 12:01 AM

And what are those facts?

What performance and production numbers supports that each aging and declining vet absolutely deserved and merited playing time over the younger cheaper players, and the results were? Speaking just of the Reds only.

Define vets and the quality or performance levels as supported by something more than your or my or Bakers opinions that makes it absolute. Other than some old paradigms in thinking. Like in thinking the CF leads off and SS bats second.

We have two years speaking for themselves by the results, one more year is not a problem. The results will speak for themselves. Not our opinions.

The facts are although Dusty has a reputation for stiffing the younger players in favor of veterans, this has not proven to be the case. I've asked for specific players who should have been playing over veterans and were producing at dramatically better rates.
Votto, Bruce, Encarnacion all have seen the field and been allowed to play through slumps.

So I'd like a veteran player who was a) not producing and b) was blocking a clearly better young player.
Tell me who it was, how many games they started, and when you would have pulled the plug on them.

Pull out all the whipping boys, C-Patt, Wily, Keppinger, whomever you like. Just tell me who the great replacement was that never got a chance.